If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
The imposition at work in this discussion is the hunger for the imposition, by people like yourself, Greenhat, of our military might on a country invaded by us once before to supposedly in order to take us considerably closer to solving all Middle Eastern problems.
It is those who oppose this lunacy you subscribe to who are concerned that no social justice can arise from any "imposition" from a foreign power. Of course you are too busy rattling your sabre to actually follow the thread of any argument, so you go off onto some twisted tangent which youve convinced yourself is a related argument but is based on a complete misaprehension of the entire discussion itself.
Noone can impose "social justice", we can merely ensure that we do not continue punishing the indigenous people for the sins of their government so that by their own self determination they can address any wish for change themselves from within.
As you may have noticed, even Iran is feeling the winds of reform and people are declaring their demands for greater self-determination and democracy. so if there without invasion, why do hawks like you contend that it cannot happen from within in the case of Iraq?
There are serious double standards at work in Washington and you Greenhat are just one far flung part of the hypocrisy.
Your first assumption there is that these actions are carried out by these Govt without the support of their people. And then you cite Iran - whose population still happily chant for the downfall of the US. Hmmm, I wonder how happy they would be if it was proven that the Iranian Govt supported terrorist acts against the US. Or Israel...
I think that the whole premise of this thread, for the resultant posts were from my "be strong or be attacked" comment, is that strength is vital if we are to avoid being a target - or at least we should be able to retailliate rather than be subjugated.
I also agreed that the military isn't the only strength to be found, that we must also show political and economic strength inorder to support some states - thuse avoiding the terrorism nursery system that exists. The problem we have is that it is impossible to please everyone, and there are issues where we have fundamental differences which cannot be negotiated away.
In 1938 we tried to negotiate with someone hell bent on domionation, we failed to deal with him. What we found at the end of that period was that we should also have been aware of the huge humanitarian that Hitler's domination brought about. What we have now is another person, with a track record, who we also need to contend with. And this person is not going to be negotiated with, he's not going to give up power - and even his death, whilst his party survives in power will stop this situation from continuing. You can point to the past involvement of the US in his rise, but that doesn't address the issue which faces us now.
You criticise the US in their actions, and comdemn them for allegedly being more interested in the regions oil, but I would be surprised if you could find many people in the world, who wouldn't prefer to live under their regime compared to Iraqs.
And there's the crux. No matter how bad we percieve the US, it is still far better than many other of the worlds regimes. Inspite of the claims of corruption - which I find ironic coming from an EU worker - they are still a million miles better than many regimes in the Middle East.
You cannot blame Bush, or his cronies, for the positions these countries are in now. Many of these problems began way before the US was even a power, but your anti-US rhetoric gets in the way. Look at your posts over time and you will see how often you condemn their actions. Yes, US foreign policy has been a problem, and yes it would be nice to have a world where people got on, and didn't look after their own interests. But this is the real world.
And you still, after all this time, haven't come up with a way of "dealing" with Saddam that doesn't include an element of force...
The real underlying motivation must be then that the US administration doesnt give a damn about the aftermath as it has also not cared in other situations where we rushed in with guns blazing and left greater problems in the wake of our rashness.
Sorry, but i do not and will not concede that your WWII germany analogy holds any water. Its been shot down already by numeorus historical commentators for some time now.
Frankly Saddam has not shown an ability to conquer any of his more substantial neighbours and thus as the situation stands "now" his only threat is to his people and thus is a matter for them to alleviate according to their own self-determination, not Bush's (and far more the likes of Richard Perle's) lust for conquest and increased military expenditures.
Saddam is contained and has been for many many years. The only real issue is the matter of sanctions which have been shown to only hurt the general Iraqi public and should therefore be abolished so they can return to the self-reliance necessary to overturn the present regime (which many Iraqi's do appear to want even if they adamantly reject America's involvement).
As for Iran, I never suggested that their nascent reform movement was pro-Western. One does not have to be pro-western to desire greater national self-determination and democracy. I doubt you would be too pro-US if your country had been attacked by a neighbouring country at the behest and with the financial and structural backing of the US, had been placed under sanctions by the same, and had been labelled as part of an axis of evil by a country which simultaneously backs other evil regimes elsewhere in the world.
Yes im critical of my government (which is not by the way "Anti-US") for the very reason that I love my country and despise what Bush and Co are doing to further drag us through the mud and to foster a political atmosphere of self-righteousness where no such moral superiority exists. The very problems we are discussing are not ancient problems which started before the US existed, they are in many cases modern issues stemming from decades of economic and political manipulation and double standards in our foreign policy.
I do not see a world where claiming the right to pre-emptive or unilateral invasion becomes (via the domino effect) the prime diplomatic wedge for asserting one nation's will over another, as being a world where any semblance of security or peace or prosperity can be fostered save for the tiny elite pulling the strings. This would then be a world where the UN might as well disband, embassies from all nations be recalled and every country just does as it pleases anytime it so desires.
So how does this armed uprising come about. Now my memory isn't what it used to be but wasn't this tried back in 1991, and didn't it fail becuase the wider international community didn't get involved?
Actually they do care, just not as much as you would like. They aren't going to sit back and let another Saddam rule that country afterwards. How many other areas has the Bush administration been involved in?
I know, because that proves the lie of your proposal.
and how has he been contained?
Could it be through the real threat of his destruction?
But hey, so long as he is only able to oppress his own population everything is okay then :rolleyes: After all, they can alleviate the problem through their own self determination. Becuase they have that capability don't they?
Which came first Iran's call for the defeat of the US, or US backed invasion by Iraq?
Neither do I, and I have never suggested such a thing (except the disbanding of the UN) I advocate negotiation and diplomacy when possible. But that isn't always the case, as I have maintained. Sometime you cannot negotiate with someone...
As for uprising, well i already stated some time ago that there are opposition groups in the country, however with most of the population scrounging to simply survive one can not expect any meaningful groundswell to appear until the indigenous population is able to get beyond deprivation to some semblence of stability and normalcy regarding their daily lives. This is certainly not going to come about through an invasion which will only serve to kill off or main thousands more civilians.
And what matter which came first in the case of Iran? Are calls from a developing nation for the downfall of of the sole super power sufficient threat to send in another maniac to attack? and if we pressed Saddam to attack first are they then not justified in hating us?
Either way, the US government at the time only set the ball rolling for the messes we face today and which this administration is foolishly in a mad rush to repeat on an even grander scale.
Please feel free to point out the faults...
So are you suggesting that before 1990, the Iraqi people were wealthy?
To remove a ruthless dictator, you suggest that we allow unlimited funding for him to purchase and amount of weaponry he desires?
Please explain.
Hmm, and how did they propose to go about their business? Terrorism perhaps?
BTW Was it Carter's regime who was in power when the revolution began?
You mean great thinkers like Noam Chomsky?
As for "Oil" being the reason for talk of an invasion, you might all remember that 10 years ago, the sole remaining superpower, today's "empire" according to some, had an Army sitting atop some of the world's richest oilfields.....and left.
Care to be a bit more specific Greeny?
If you mean the Iraqi oilfields then we didnt simply leave, our industries had their oil rights removed when Saddam nationalised the oil production in Iraq. A major factor which the hawks dont want to discuss as it strikes at the very heart of their urge for war.
For those who care to learn actually which side (hawks, vs more liberal minded pundits) has tradiotnally sought financial reward from supporting evil tyrants and other such dictators, have a read and perhaps youll start seeing the typical duplicity of the right more clearly...
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/9/12/83425/6043
And another interesting article that deals more generally with the pandora's box of pre-emptive invasion thinking...
http://www.geocities.com/globalfreedominstitute/Iraq-Preemptive-Justified9-20-02pg1.html
And as for Noam Chomsky, Id be interested to hear what you, Greenhat, with your demonstrated lack of ability to maintain a cohesive argument have to say about a well respected MIT professor who quite cogently holds the administration's sensationalist rhetoric up to the spotlight and shows its blatant duplicity...
http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2002-09/05chomsky.cfm
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/09.10E.chomsky.iraq.htm
http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/chomsky/iraq.html
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/09/06/1031115935105.html
Now, I certainly dont expect you Greenhat to bother reading any of these or even of having the capacity to open your eyes and comprehend the bigger picture underlying Washington's demand for war "at all cost" even if you do, since you are paid to do what youre told without question or objection. Nevertheless, others here might be quite interested in the otherwise excluded elements of the current "hawkish" arguments being proffered to go in and light the place up all over again.
Happy reading!
As for Chomsky, I see you forgot to mention what he is a professor in. Linguistics, an area he doesn't bother to write about. Because then he would be subject to peer review and could lose his tenure and standing (something he is not subject to writing about history and political science since he is not a professor and has no qualifications in either field). His research methods and source use is biased and consistently incomplete. Maybe you think he is respected, but it isn't by people who are subject to peer review in the subject areas where he writes.
Iraq by the way has the second largest oil reserves in the Middle East. Western oil compaines would love to get their hands on this not just to supply America but to sell to emerging oil markets such as China.
So why war. Beyond it being plausible that Saddam would give know-how and material to terrorists, a Muslim democracy would be a bit of sanity in a part of the world where Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are likely to go to Islamic extremists and Iran and Syria are still promoting terrorism in the region.
Muslim democracies are the future we can't allow Muslim extremists or corrupt Muslim Monarcies to survive.
This whole thing smells of corruption and lust for power.
They say Pakistan and Saudi Arabia may be the next to go radical.
Neither is "going extremist" since Pakistan has a secular government (well as yet a military dictatorship for all intents and purposes) and a multi party Parliament.
As for Saudi, well all attempts from extremists to oust them have failed to date and I doubt that a bunch of guys who have to hide in caves are much of a threat to the Royal Family.
If anyone would be likely to topple these governments it would be our own government (no doubt with heavy support from the CIA and NSA).
You really have swallowed the media hype and the administration's bogus spin hook, line, and sinker.
I suppose you even believed the erroneously titled article that appeared recently in the Washington Post claiming a link between Iraq and Al Quaeda (even though no such link was actually contained in the report and the fact that such a link has long since been dismissed by the Western Powers).