[quote]kroby wrote:
“puppet government” is all I needed to read to understand the stance of this “journalist.” Biased
[/quote]
How do we call a government now, whose representatives were handpicked by the US and would not survive on week without the US?
Just curious.
If someone who calls a spade a spade is allready biased…
[quote]kroby wrote:
Shaking off the yoke of a tyrant, even if it cost 10 million lives is fair price to pay for freedom. Unless you are a coward. Because you’re paving the future for your offspring. Or have you forgotten those, that would have been oppressed right now by Saddam and for who knows how long into the future by his sons, who were going to inherit his regime and continue his work of terrorizing the citizens of Iraq?
[/quote]
There is a profound difference between shaking off a tyrant or having it shaken off by someone else.
If I decide to risk my life that is one thing, if you decide to risk my life, it is another thing and if Albright comments on TV that 600000 dead Iraquis have been “worth it” it is yet another level.
Even in the US people are rather save then free and yet you “liberate” other countries?
[quote]orion wrote:
kroby wrote:
“puppet government” is all I needed to read to understand the stance of this “journalist.” Biased
How do we call a government now, whose representatives were handpicked by the US and would not survive on week without the US?
Just curious.
If someone who calls a spade a spade is allready biased…
[/quote]
At the time of that article, the interim provincial governmental body was in place. Do you expect the day we liberated Iraq, they’d hold elections? Was no government a viable solution? What is your suggestion?
How would you start from ground zero, while there is still fighting in the streets? Calling it a puppet government lends an air of placement against the will of a capable populace. It’s an inaccurate description. Made to incite resentment. They were not capable. And it was replaced.
Is the current government in Iraq also a puppet government?
If they held elections the next day, and there was dancing in the streets… we would have left that day. That was the pie in the sky hope Bush had. And that was a dumb hope.
[quote]orion wrote:
There is a profound difference between shaking off a tyrant or having it shaken off by someone else.
If I decide to risk my life that is one thing, if you decide to risk my life, it is another thing and if Albright comments on TV that 600000 dead Iraquis have been “worth it” it is yet another level.
Even in the US people are rather save then free and yet you “liberate” other countries? [/quote]
Oppression should be fought. I don’t care by who or where. Saddam’s terrorizing his own populace is well documented. Because they couldn’t rise and throw him out, they should stay oppressed?
[quote]kroby wrote:
Would you have told the French or Americans, “oh, don’t fight for independence from an oppressive government, the cost of lives is too high!” Same with India, sure. They’d live, and then so would their progeny. Oppressed. That is pure, unadulterated cowardice.[/quote]
Ha! Beyond ludicrous.
The French didn’t have a foreign force bomb the hell out of them to take over the Bastille. The Americans and Indians fought an occupier, pretty much the same way the “insurgency” fights you in Iraq.
If you really wanted the Iraqis to break free from Saddam’s awful regime, you would have let the resistance keep weapons post-GWI. Or at the very least, lifted the sanctions that only reinforced Saddam’s position while starving the public. Don’t try to paint this war as a war to spread democracy.
We all know the US only cares about that when the elected government happens to be pro-US. How about stopping your support for dictators such as the Al-Sauds? How about not arming Mubarak’s regime?
[quote]kroby wrote:
Oppression should be fought. I don’t care by who or where. Saddam’s terrorizing his own populace is well documented. Because they couldn’t rise and throw him out, they should stay oppressed?[/quote]
Enters the country that claims to know what’s best for Iraqis and whose president claims to receive orders from God.
Your speech is textbook imperialism.
[quote]lixy wrote:
kroby wrote:
Oppression should be fought. I don’t care by who or where. Saddam’s terrorizing his own populace is well documented. Because they couldn’t rise and throw him out, they should stay oppressed?
Your speech is textbook imperialism.[/quote]
You need to read more Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, George Washington, Ben Franklin… John Adams… need I go on? That statement is pure ignorance, lixy.
[quote]lixy wrote:
kroby wrote:
Would you have told the French or Americans, “oh, don’t fight for independence from an oppressive government, the cost of lives is too high!” Same with India, sure. They’d live, and then so would their progeny. Oppressed. That is pure, unadulterated cowardice.
Ha! Beyond ludicrous.
The French didn’t have a foreign force bomb the hell out of them to take over the Bastille. The Americans and Indians fought an occupier, pretty much the same way the “insurgency” fights you in Iraq.
If you really wanted the Iraqis to break free from Saddam’s awful regime, you would have let the resistance keep weapons post-GWI. Or at the very least, lifted the sanctions that only reinforced Saddam’s position while starving the public. Don’t try to paint this war as a war to spread democracy.
We all know the US only cares about that when the elected government happens to be pro-US. How about stopping your support for dictators such as the Al-Sauds? How about not arming Mubarak’s regime?[/quote]
You make no sense. That’s all I can say about your post.
[quote]kroby wrote:
Is the current government in Iraq also a puppet government?
[/quote]
Can it control the country without the US?
Forget that…
Can it control the country WITH the US?
The Kurds however, whoever rules them, seem to have group of people who exercise control over a relativly clear defined area.
They might have a government which is bad news for the US idea of a united Iraq.
[quote]orion wrote:
kroby wrote:
Is the current government in Iraq also a puppet government?
Can it control the country without the US?
Forget that…
Can it control the country WITH the US?
The Kurds however, whoever rules them, seem to have group of people who exercise control over a relativly clear defined area.
They might have a government which is bad news for the US idea of a united Iraq.
[/quote]
You’ve just defined a government that isn’t puppet of anyone. I call that good.
[quote]kroby wrote:
orion wrote:
There is a profound difference between shaking off a tyrant or having it shaken off by someone else.
If I decide to risk my life that is one thing, if you decide to risk my life, it is another thing and if Albright comments on TV that 600000 dead Iraquis have been “worth it” it is yet another level.
Even in the US people are rather save then free and yet you “liberate” other countries?
Oppression should be fought. I don’t care by who or where. Saddam’s terrorizing his own populace is well documented. Because they couldn’t rise and throw him out, they should stay oppressed?[/quote]
Frankly, yes.
Any government, even Saddams depends on the co-operation of the governed.
As you can see now, if they do not want to be governed they aren`t.
To shove a few hundred people into a meatgrinder because tyranny must be fought is like doing it to spread Christianity.
You cannot force other people into happyness, you can only be a shining example of freedom and prosperity and right now you are not doing to well on that front.
Plus, do not the Palestinians have a democratically elected leader?
[quote]kroby wrote:
You’ve just defined a government that isn’t puppet of anyone. I call that good.[/quote]
Yes, for the Kurds but not for Iraq as a whole.
The Shi`ites would accept a government too, problem is it might be in Teheran…
Baaad news for the US , because Turky does not want an independent Kurdistan at their borders and they are your allies too.
With their cheap oil and new found political freedom they can and probably will be a pain in the ass for the Turks, who, quite frankly, deserve it.
You will probably have to buy the Turks off, but since the American tax payer seems to have deep pockets…
[quote]orion wrote:
Frankly, yes.
Any government, even Saddams depends on the co-operation of the governed.
As you can see now, if they do not want to be governed they aren`t.
To shove a few hundred people into a meatgrinder because tyranny must be fought is like doing it to spread Christianity.
You cannot force other people into happyness, you can only be a shining example of freedom and prosperity and right now you are not doing to well on that front.
Plus, do not the Palestinians have a democratically elected leader?
[/quote]
You win. I agree with you whole heartedly on each of your points.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
I am well aware of the guy’s story. What I challenged, was your claim that he was “indicted on criminal charges for trying to overthrow the government of a sovereign nation”. One would think that such an astonishing revelation is widely reported.
[/quote]
Maybe indited was the wrong word, so sue me. If you know this guys story, then you know why he quit his job with the CIA. If you know this, then there is nothing more to say about it.
[quote]lixy wrote:
How about stopping your support for dictators such as the Al-Sauds? How about not arming Mubarak’s regime?[/quote]
What if we did? Al-Qaeda or other islamists get in control of these countries.
And don’t tell me that AQ can’t take over Arabia or Pakistan. The Taliban took over Afghanistan. AQ is in Iraq and you, yourself said they have a good foothold. Radicals took over Iran after the fall of the Shah. It is conceivable that radicals could take over these 2 countries.
And if they did, you’d be the first one to say: “Things were better under the Saudis or Mubarak” and blame the US for withdrawing support all to hell.
[quote]kroby wrote:
orion wrote:
Frankly, yes.
Any government, even Saddams depends on the co-operation of the governed.
As you can see now, if they do not want to be governed they aren`t.
To shove a few hundred people into a meatgrinder because tyranny must be fought is like doing it to spread Christianity.
You cannot force other people into happyness, you can only be a shining example of freedom and prosperity and right now you are not doing to well on that front.
Plus, do not the Palestinians have a democratically elected leader?
You win. I agree with you whole heartedly on each of your points.[/quote]
Kroby,
Don’t agree with bota. This is rule number one.
Remember that he is assuming the Iraqi’s don’t want democracy.
The three elections and the 70% turnout (in the face of violence) proves him completely wrong.
Remember that our shining example isn’t seen in many dictatorial lands. It’s not like they can turn on fifty different mediums. For the most part, it’s tightly controlled. See saddam.
It’s one of the tenets of any subjugator: Keep the oppressed in ignorance.
saddam was a MASTER at it. He was also incredibly effective at stamping out all resistance.
Therefore, the U.S. was the catalyst for the democratic reaction. We are also the facilitators.
We had our own facilitators in 1777 on: the french.
Looking to our example, had we not had the french, we wouldn’t have had democracy.
Or, closer to home for bota, had the U.S. not saved the austrians from themselves (WWII) or from the Soviets (1945-1989), austria wouldn’t be a democracy either.
In summary, almost every democracy needs allies to nurture it along.
JeffR
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Maybe indited was the wrong word, so sue me. [/quote]
Thanks for playing fair. I highly respect that.
Yep. But I had to remove the ambiguity. Other readers might have bought your twisted presentation of the story.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
What if we did? Al-Qaeda or other islamists get in control of these countries.
And don’t tell me that AQ can’t take over Arabia or Pakistan. The Taliban took over Afghanistan. AQ is in Iraq and you, yourself said they have a good foothold. Radicals took over Iran after the fall of the Shah. It is conceivable that radicals could take over these 2 countries.
And if they did, you’d be the first one to say: “Things were better under the Saudis or Mubarak” and blame the US for withdrawing support all to hell.[/quote]
Exactly. If you remove ANY of the dictators in the Arab world (and God knows there are many), the Islamists will rise to power. Not Al-Qaeda because they have almost no support base, but Islamists nonetheless. I don’t necessarily see it as a bad thing because it will be a democratic expression. Trust me on that one. ANY fair and transparent election in the Arab world will put Islamists in charge.
Al-Qaeda cannot take over Iraq. They can do serious damage to it, destabilize it, but they will never get to power there. The only countries where they have a remote chance of getting to rallying a substantial portion of the populace to their cause (~10%) would be Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.
For all those reasons (and I have a ton more), it is highly hypocritical - and downright absurd - to claim that the US presence in Iraq is motivated by a concern over democracy. You never cared about democracy unless the winner was on your side. So, I’ll kindly ask you to stop using that argument.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Don’t agree with bota. This is rule number one. [/quote]
Spoken like a true bigot.
I dare you to find anything in Orion’s statement that wasn’t strikingly true. He put some serious thoughts into that particular post and I can only salute his clairvoyance and eloquence. You could learn something from him.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Yep. But I had to remove the ambiguity. Other readers might have bought your twisted presentation of the story.[/quote]
Twisted? From the Wikipedia:
“While in Salah al-Din Baer unsuccessfully urged the Clinton Administration to back an internal Iraqi attempt to overthrow Saddam Hussein (organized by a group of Sunni military officers, the Iraqi National Congress’ Ahmad Chalabi, and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan’s Jalal Talabani) in March of 1995 with covert CIA assistance. Baer quit the Agency in 1997.”
There is a rule in the US that you are not allowed to target a head of state in an assassination. Baer stepped over this line. Therefore, he could of been tried, but chose to resign.
So, getting back to the original idea presented here: yes it would have been easy to assassinate Saddam. Would we have done it? No.