World Power

[AKr0n]

KK!!

Whats gonna be next??Sadam hides aliens in his basement??

OK ok, I agree...yes..thats inhuman...but still, Bush+Blair will always find extra reasons for war...They shouldve thot before, and planned this out, rather than just saying...Atom Bomb...where is that?aaaaa hate thinkin bout this

[KrustyKidd]

KK!!

Whats gonna be next??Sadam hides aliens in his basement??

OK ok, I agree...yes..thats inhuman...but still, Bush+Blair will always find extra reasons for war...They shouldve thot before, and planned this out, rather than just saying...Atom Bomb...where is that?aaaaa hate thinkin bout this

at least sadam just killed people...rather than depreciating them of all the honor they have left as human beings and mistreating them like shit

I can't believe you wrote that.

Bush+Blair will always find extra reasons for war

Therre is oly one reason for the war and that was to free the people of Iraq and set up a system that provides for the people an opportunity that we in the west enjoy known as democracy.

Scince they have never experienced it or even had the ability to vote in what type of governing means to live under is it any wonder that terrorism breeds so easily in a place where people have no hope? That is the reason.

For their goal was WMD...where are they?

WMD was a pretext. You are months behind the ball here. When the focus shifted from WMD to 'Regime Change' back in Feb '03 you should have understood clearer.

+where does it say i assume they will not be successful??I say...They WILL not be successful, its not an assumption, its a certainty

Do you understand what is going to happen if they are unsuccessfull? I don't think you do and it has nothing to do with Iraq. Let me hear your theory before I give you mine.

u have never lived under a communist regime, I insure you that it ain't as terrible as you may think, now the idea of being crushed within a capitalist society, like your democracy...thats scary

Is that why the USSR collapsed? Because it was a successful political system? You ought to write a book on that theory.

And democracy chilled, while Soviet Union took the lead in space

And they couldn't go the distance. Time tells all friend.

[Hugo]

Hugo, my personal opinion tells me that u've been going too much to school in the states during the cold war...lol 100million, if only, thatd be the perfect little society, which it wasnt---->half the number at least, and no offense gainst u

I have never been to school in the USA. I'm a product of the British education system, back when it was good.

Regardless, the 110,000,000 figure comes from years of research and examination of sources. You tell me it's wrong, but there is no logic, reasoning or evidence behind that. So we're going with 110,000,000 by default. Incidentally, those same sources show that it's not unrealistic to suppose that figure could be tripled.

And democracy chilled, while Soviet Union took the lead in space

While their cosmonauts died because of inadequate or absent safety measures. The Americans were second in space but they killed a great many fewer people getting there.

u have never lived under a communist regime, I insure you that it ain't as terrible as you may think

A friend of mine was imprisoned by the Czech government between 1976 and 1989 (the velvet revolution), for the crime of distributing pamphlets on economic freedom and publicly proposing democratic reform. He's quite soured on communism. Conversely, I have quite a few Marxist friends in the West and none of them have been jailed for their beliefs.

[Black Dog]

Therre is oly one reason for the war and that was to free the people of Iraq and set up a system that provides for the people an opportunity that we in the west enjoy known as democracy

Post facto weasel words. The run up to the war was characterized by the statements that Iraq was an immediate threat to the security of the U.S., which is why the war was immediately necessary. The focus shifted to "regime change" when it became apparent the WMD angles wasn't working.

However, even if we were to accept your chosen rationale for war, the simple fact is that no state has the right to arbitrarily impose its will on other states. There's a word for that: imperialism.

Anyway, the real reasons for "regime change" have been out there for a long time. The architects of this fiasco have not been shy about there vision for the Mid East.

Origins of Regime Change in Iraq

WMD was a pretext. You are months behind the ball here. When the focus shifted from WMD to 'Regime Change' back in Feb '03 you should have understood clearer.

Nice to see some honesty for a change:

pre·text  (prtkst)

n.

1) An ostensible or professed purpose; an excuse.

2) An effort or strategy intended to conceal something

Do you understand what is going to happen if they are unsuccessfull? I don't think you do and it has nothing to do with Iraq.

They've already failed. By alienating friends and provoking foes, by blundering through the Iraqi reconstruction and by continuing to support the dictators who keep freedom from the grasp of the people of the Mid East, the U.S and it sallies have provided enough fuel to keep the hatred of the west burning for a long time.

[AKr0n]

Regardless, the 110,000,000 figure comes from years of research and examination of sources. You tell me it's wrong, but there is no logic, reasoning or evidence behind that.

Not counting the war effort---->50million...., there was 50million ppl killed under the regime...informed by my father, grandson of a leading communist...hehe

A friend of mine was imprisoned by the Czech government between 1976 and 1989 (the velvet revolution), for the crime of distributing pamphlets on economic freedom and publicly proposing democratic reform. He's quite soured on communism. Conversely, I have quite a few Marxist friends in the West and none of them have been jailed for their beliefs

Well...thats too bad for them, if you live by the system, follow the laws, you generally live happy...And besides, don't tell me democracy does better in that sense---> Communism offers a chance to be a human,

Democracy gives you only but the right...(beggars..criminals..)

While their cosmonauts died because of inadequate or absent safety measures. The Americans were second in space but they killed a great many fewer people getting there

Right..but thats with all new technologies no?That accidents like this happen---->stressing the fact that Soviets (altho to prove their supremacy) did this for humanity (for Soviet humanity =) ) whereas US (who also did it for humanity) now uses space as an instrument of raping privacy (satellite photos..you can't be safe anywhere anymore, and with the posts im making, im sure they already have a file on me hehe j/k =) )

I can't believe you wrote that.

Well i did...But you in the place of the tortured ppl, would beg for death...death is liberation from suffering..Unless you're a sadist, and like to c ppl suffer =?

Therre is oly one reason for the war and that was to free the people of Iraq and set up a system that provides for the people an opportunity that we in the west enjoy known as democracy.

Freedom=anarchy....US democracy??If it was good, then everyone would adopt it, unfortunately todays world, and also since the beginning of humanity it has not been so, because of ppls different temperaments...its something you have to accept.

Let me hear your theory before I give you mine.

There may be many different outcomes for this problem:

a.

USA stay there, and grant a number of young men to die every year to keep order, as well as implement the US democracy there....Then in the long-run it might improve....but ohoho, USA will be one scary place to go to, as terrorist activity will increase because of this...And this will in the end lead to the fall of USA, as Afghanistan led to the fall of communism...It will drain the economy further, creating an impossible impossible debt (its currently impossible, if i am not mistaken)

b.

USA leaves as soon as constitution is drawn up, leaving the different ethnic groups to take care of their matters independently, hence provoking a bloody civil war....Encouraging different terrorist factions to rise, fight with each other, and also kill innocent people in western countries...as the cause of their grief...

c.

USA creates a confederation, dividing the different groups accordingly into different smaller states, though it will probably create another Israel-Palestine problem, version Further East tho...

d.

Extreme Nazi case: drop an atom bomb there to end problem once and for all...(though i do not recommend this..i believe in their right for equality, therefore doing this would mean also throwing bombs on our own countries...)

In either case, the USA was successful in arousing anti-US feeling throughout the world, and giving reason more for the uneducated ppl to join such factions as al-qaida...Bravo, and thx George.

Is that why the USSR collapsed?

No, look at your country throughout the next 10-20 years, and you will understand why it collapsed..

And they couldn't go the distance. Time tells all friend.

Well, I've got my life to see what happens in irak, and democracy, and USA, time will tell, i will be patient and learn what there is to learn from that..

Well that answers bout almost everything up until now hehe----> but im just going to add you this thing...look carefully:

Roman Empire >< Huns (Barbaric Tribes)

Catholics (Crusaders) >< Islam (Sarrasins)

Britain >< Spain

France (Napoleon)>< Britain (King whoever it was)

France (Clemenceau)>< German Empire (Wilhelm II)

Nazi Germany >< Soviet Union

USA >< USSR

See where i'm tryin to get??no??not yet??

OK!!

1992- Fall of communism...----->

USA >< ......

2004:

USA >< Terrorism

This is called "Balance Of Power"....what the US gvt failed to notice throughout history, is that therell always be another "BIG" bad guy to counter the BIGGEST world power...no matter where, when, and why...it just happens like that...unless USA have plans to take over the world, which could work hehe, but will not =) as shown by our friend from old times, Hitler...

[AKr0n]

Well...thats too bad for them, if you live by the system, follow the laws, you generally live happy...And besides, don't tell me democracy does better in that sense---> Communism offers a chance to be a human,

Democracy gives you only but the right...(beggars..criminals..)

Out of place comment, my pardon plz =)

I meant that communism gives you the ability to have the basic requirements to live, whereas in a democracy poverty is a great virus there, due to capitalist domination....not everyone lives well in democracies, only those with the wealth..

[KrustyKidd]

The run up to the war was characterized by the statements that Iraq was an immediate threat to the security of the U.S., which is why the war was immediately necessary.

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late."

Bush - State of the Union Address

Doesn't sound like anything is an immediate threat here. To the contrary, it is pretty clear that he won't wait until it becomes immediate. He didn't say it in Greek either but in pretty easy to understand English.

The focus shifted to "regime change" when it became apparent the WMD angles wasn't working.

No, when the UN started to waffle they provided another reason, the real reason.

KK

Do you understand what is going to happen if they are unsuccessfull? I don't think you do and it has nothing to do with Iraq.

BD

They've already failed. By alienating friends and provoking foes, by blundering through the Iraqi reconstruction and by continuing to support the dictators who keep freedom from the grasp of the people of the Mid East, the U.S and it sallies have provided enough fuel to keep the hatred of the west burning for a long time.

You missed it.

If Iraq, comming out from under the boot of one of the most reppressive regimes on the planet, with a modern fairly well educated people, a central geopolitical location and people, riches beyond most countries in the world cannot become democratic and self governing. Then it means that none of them can.

It is hope that is at stake here. If it fails, the rising tide of Islamo Fashism will prevail. If they win the struggle in Iraq or it falls into chaos, the US will more than likely leave and let the region turn into the dream that Islamic Militents hope for. A horrific version of Afganistan under the Taliban.

When the next major terrorist strike hits the west, the US will not respond with dreams of installing democracy or human rights, but with a security crackdown the likes of only seen in dictatorships. The rest of the world will follow suit as they are attacked as well with stock markets collapsing as oil markets tumble. People the world over will starve as trade is all but stopped between east and west. The US will enact strict defensive measures with no pretension of making idealogical statements. A lot of death, and a lot of bombs.

Terrorists know that this is bigger game than one country. If they lose this one, they begin a long trip into irrelevence.

[Black Dog]

Doesn't sound like anything is an immediate threat here. To the contrary, it is pretty clear that he won't wait until it becomes immediate. He didn't say it in Greek either but in pretty easy to understand English

"Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. It's a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It's a danger we cannot ignore."

Source: Donald Rumsfeld Addresses the Conference of Army Reserve Operators, Defense Department (1/20/2003).

"But the President also believes that this problem has to be dealt with, and if the United Nations won't deal with it, then the United States, with other likeminded nations, may have to deal with it. We would prefer not to go that route, but the danger is so great, with respect to Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction, and perhaps even terrorists getting hold of such weapons, that it is time for the international community to act, and if it doesn't act, the President is prepared to act with likeminded nations."

Source: Colin Powell Interview by Ellen Ratner of Talk Radio News, Talk Radio News (10/30/2002).

"On its present course, the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . it has developed weapons of mass death."

Source: President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution, White House (10/2/2002).

[N]o terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq."

Source: Testimony of U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Senate Armed Services Committee (9/19/2002).

"The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take."

Source: President Bush's Address to the United Nations General Assembly, White House (9/12/2002).

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

Source: Vice President Cheney Speaks at VFW 103rd National Convention, White House (8/26/2002).

So, since Iraq did not pose an immediate threat (despite statements from top U.S. officials to the effect that it did), the invasion was justified by the possibility that Iraq might become a threat at some point in the future.

Unfortunately, the principale of preemptive war is not supporte dby international law, nor common sense. For instance, by that logic, India has every right to nuke Pakistan, since that nation demonstrates and immediate threat to India's security. Syria has every right to attack Israel, as Israeli officials have made public pronoucements calling for the execution of Hamas leaders in Damascus.

the U.S. failed to make its case that Iraq was a "growing and grave" threat. The UNSC rejected the US resolution, so the U.S. invaded anyway. So far, ther eis nothing to show that Iraq posed any threat now, or had the capability to become a threat in the near future.

If Iraq, comming out from under the boot of one of the most reppressive regimes on the planet, with a modern fairly well educated people, a central geopolitical location and people, riches beyond most countries in the world cannot become democratic and self governing.

You missed it. The key is self-determination. While we in the west have the luxury of forgetting about our cultures imperialist past, rest assured, non-westerners have not. Non-westerners have had to contend with the western interventionism for hundreds of years. Imperialist ventures has always dressed themselves in pretty rhetoric and good intentions. However, thiose outside the west see little difference between the "white man's burden" which brought "civilization" (and foreign rule) and today's talk of "bringing democracy" (with the implicit assumption being that the brown-skinned people of the world are too stupid or backwards to run their own affairs).

If it fails, the rising tide of Islamo Fashism will prevail. If they win the struggle in Iraq or it falls into chaos, the US will more than likely leave and let the region turn into the dream that Islamic Militents hope for. A horrific version of Afganistan under the Taliban.

First, what "rising tide" of "Islamo Facsism"? How many "Islamo fascist" have arisen in the Middle east? Iran, the only bona-fide revolutionary theocracy in the Mid East has been making slow and steady progress in the area of reforms, no bombs required. Elsewhere, where Islamic-flavoured regimes rule with an iron fist, they do so because of to extensive support from the west (Saudi Arabia and Egypt being two prime examples).

Afghanistan is a unique situation, as that nation has lacked a strong central government of any sort for more than 20 years. The Taliban was not an organized political movement, but a loose confederacy of tribal factions, religious zealots, and ordinary Afghanis tired of the chaos of post-Soviet civil war and craving stability. That promise of political and economic stability is what allowed the Taliban to gather enough support for victory in the civil war. Indeed, much of the west supported the Taliban in its early rise to power, and western nations showed little recitence in striking deals with them in exchange for access to the Central Asian gas reserves.

In any case democracy, true democracy, must grow and thrive within a society, not be imposed from without, particularly by a distrusted and arrogant superpower.

When the next major terrorist strike hits the west, the US will not respond with dreams of installing democracy or human rights, but with a security crackdown the likes of only seen in dictatorships. The rest of the world will follow suit as they are attacked as well with stock markets collapsing as oil markets tumble. People the world over will starve as trade is all but stopped between east and west. The US will enact strict defensive measures with no pretension of making idealogical statements. A lot of death, and a lot of bombs.

It certainly seems that is the path we're already on. the U.S. had a chance to build bridges with the Arab world after 9-11, to change its ways for the better.

Instead, it squandered whatever good will existed by unilaterally invading and occupying Iraq, supporting Israel and Arab dictatorships, and leading what the Arab world sees as a new crusade (certainly the Christian fundie element in the Bush administration has done little to correct that perception), which will inevitably spawn more terrorism and more extremism.

The U.S. is like an abusive mate locked in a pattern of behavior cannot (or will not) resist.

[KrustyKidd]

Unfortunately, the principale of preemptive war is not supporte dby international law, nor common sense. For instance, by that logic, India has every right to nuke Pakistan, since that nation demonstrates and immediate threat to India's security. Syria has every right to attack Israel, as Israeli officials have made public pronoucements calling for the execution of Hamas leaders in Damascus.

When one has attacked four other countries in the region and has umpteen resolutions against them and flaunts them all while UN inspectors are threatened and thwarted, it would become an issue. Until then it’s a bad example for your point.

You missed it. The key is self-determination. While we in the west have the luxury of forgetting about our cultures imperialist past, rest assured, non-westerners have not. Non-westerners have had to contend with the western interventionism for hundreds of years. Imperialist ventures has always dressed themselves in pretty rhetoric and good intentions. However, thiose outside the west see little difference between the "white man's burden" which brought "civilization" (and foreign rule) and today's talk of "bringing democracy" (with the implicit assumption being that the brown-skinned people of the world are too stupid or backwards to run their own affairs).

Nice try. The so called ‘Imperialism’ of the US is not the same. In days of old, the British, French, Spanish, Dutch and Portuguese all attempted to carve out their little empires for their own exclusive use. That is not happening here. The US is not attempting to enslave anybody, they are not putting the people under their boot but rather making steps for self determination. Quite the opposite from what you portray. I know that this comment will not die here as you percieve this from a polar opposite, but why I wonder. We read the same stuff, are both intelligent and yet make different assumptions.

irst, what "rising tide" of "Islamo Facsism"? How many "Islamo fascist" have arisen in the Middle east? Iran, the only bona-fide revolutionary theocracy in the Mid East has been making slow and steady progress in the area of reforms, no bombs required. Elsewhere, where Islamic-flavoured regimes rule with an iron fist, they do so because of to extensive support from the west (Saudi Arabia and Egypt being two prime examples).

Afghanistan is a unique situation, as that nation has lacked a strong central government of any sort for more than 20 years. The Taliban was not an organized political movement, but a loose confederacy of tribal factions, religious zealots, and ordinary Afghanis tired of the chaos of post-Soviet civil war and craving stability. That promise of political and economic stability is what allowed the Taliban to gather enough support for victory in the civil war. Indeed, much of the west supported the Taliban in its early rise to power, and western nations showed little recitence in striking deals with them in exchange for access to the Central Asian gas reserves.

Al Queda, Hamas, Jihad and a few dozen others. Pick up a paper, they bomb all over the world.

In any case democracy, true democracy, must grow and thrive within a society, not be imposed from without, particularly by a distrusted and arrogant superpower.

So tell me BD. How does Democracy grow in say .... Iraq under Saddam? How would the people of Iraq come out from under the boot of Saddam? A few protests and he realizes his faults? Comon, you have to tell us. Have the people that are not permitted communication devices to tap out morse code messages on pipes, smoke signals, what? Write a few letters in between torture sessions?

It certainly seems that is the path we're already on. the U.S. had a chance to build bridges with the Arab world after 9-11, to change its ways for the better.

Instead, it squandered whatever good will existed by unilaterally invading and occupying Iraq, supporting Israel and Arab dictatorships, and leading what the Arab world sees as a new crusade (certainly the Christian fundie element in the Bush administration has done little to correct that perception), which will inevitably spawn more terrorism and more extremism.

The U.S. is like an abusive mate locked in a pattern of behavior cannot (or will not) resist.

I do agree with your last point here Black Dog. I do wish that the US would lay down some heavy handedness with Israel but as for building bridges with the ME, it will only be possible when we are similarly and idealogicly compatable. On one hand, you have Medival Minded Power Brokers like Kings, Dictators, Strict Religious leaders and on the other you have presidents for life. None of them want to change, none of them will change and the people themselves suffer the most. The dissent and constriction leads to being likely recruits for terrorism. Here, you advocate being more friendly to these leaders or to push for change? I think the latter.

Given that, in Saddam’s case, the pitch fell on deaf ears.

[Black Dog]

When one has attacked four other countries in the region and has umpteen resolutions against them and flaunts them all while UN inspectors are threatened and thwarted, it would become an issue. Until then it’s a bad example for your point.

No it's not. It's a perfect illustration. Article 51 of the UN Charter states that no nation shall attack another except in self-defense. No qualifyier. The UNSC did not give the invasion its blessing, so it occurred outside teh UN's mandate and was illegal, no matter how selectively you choose to interpret prior resolutions.

As an aside, I find it fascinating that right-wingers will often bring up Iraq's noncompliance with UN resolutions, but clam up when one points out that Israel has the single worst record of non-compliance of any nation. At that point the UN becomes "irrelevant".

The so called ‘Imperialism’ of the US is not the same. In days of old, the British, French, Spanish, Dutch and Portuguese all attempted to carve out their little empires for their own exclusive use. That is not happening here. The US is not attempting to enslave anybody, they are not putting the people under their boot but rather making steps for self determination. Quite the opposite from what you portray. I know that this comment will not die here as you percieve this from a polar opposite, but why I wonder. We read the same stuff, are both intelligent and yet make different assumptions.

Basically you make an assumtion that all the U.S. motives are pure as the driven snow and work backwards. I look at the past behaviour of the U.S. and its current policies like its National Security Strategy, the primary goal of which is to prevent the rise of any nation that could challenge the United States.

Of course, even if I were to give the U.S. and the PNAC crowd the benefit of the doubt, I still do not believe that the methodologies used (unilateral invasion, etc.) are conducive to building democracies. As I've stated elsewhere, if the U.S. was truly interested iin bring democracy to the mid-East and the Arab world, they would have started small, with some place like Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, places where the U.S. could have leveraged democratic reforms without the use of force.

Al Queda, Hamas, Jihad and a few dozen others. Pick up a paper, they bomb all over the world.

That's not evidence of a "rising tide", as most of those organizations have been around for ages (Hamas, for instance, was founded in the late '70s). You'll have to do better than that.

How does Democracy grow in say .... Iraq under Saddam? How would the people of Iraq come out from under the boot of Saddam? A few protests and he realizes his faults? Comon, you have to tell us. Have the people that are not permitted communication devices to tap out morse code messages on pipes, smoke signals, what? Write a few letters in between torture sessions?

History is overflowing with examples of worse tyrants than Saddam who have been consigned to the dustbin of history by thei rown people.

That said, you're ducking the question, which isn't whether the Iraqi people are better of without Saddam, but whether or not military force is the best way to implement democracy. To borrow a historical analogy, how different would U.S history be if, instead of a homegrown revolution overthrew the British, France came and kicked Britain out. How happy would the revolutionaries be to replace one occupier with another?

The point here is that democracy is not a gift that can be handed out to deserving brown people like candy. By definition, it must come from the struggle of the people.

[KrustyKidd]

As an aside, I find it fascinating that right-wingers will often bring up Iraq's noncompliance with UN resolutions, but clam up when one points out that Israel has the single worst record of non-compliance of any nation. At that point the UN becomes "irrelevant".

OK, Israel is in non compliance. Get a coalition and attack them. Don't be surprised if the US doesn't join in and be prepared to see your coalition get it's kicked hard. Now, back to Iraq.

Of course, even if I were to give the U.S. and the PNAC crowd the benefit of the doubt, I still do not believe that the methodologies used (unilateral invasion, etc.) are conducive to building democracies. As I've stated elsewhere, if the U.S. was truly interested iin bring democracy to the mid-East and the Arab world, they would have started small, with some place like Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, places where the U.S. could have leveraged democratic reforms without the use of force.

No, there were good reasons why it was Iraq; geography, oil wealth to aid the reconstruction, a hated government, a government that would not be missed by it's neighbors and even aplauded once gone, a fairly modern people with an industrialized base and a reason to justify it - WMD and non compliance to a ceasefire.

Kuwait, hmmmm. What resolutions have they broken? What countries have they invaded? As for democratic reforms in those places, they will happen albeit, slowely once this is over. To spend decades making them while ignoring Saddam and his resumption of his production of WMD and material is idiocy.

[Black Dog]

OK, Israel is in non compliance. Get a coalition and attack them. Don't be surprised if the US doesn't join in and be prepared to see your coalition get it's kicked hard. Now, back to Iraq.

So your outrage over non-compliance with UN resolutions and international law, as well as posession of illegal WMD, is strictly selective. Moral relativism noted.

[KrustyKidd]

No Black Dog. Issues do not stand on their own most of the time but rather in conjunction to others. For example, Sven Robinson stole a ring. Will he get hard time? Doubt it. However, if a drug addict with a rap shett long as your arm did it, it would have a different outcome.

Israel is a physical threat to none but those who attack her. All other problems with Israel are diplomatic and can be solved once her security issues are solved. Of course, it is a cycle that has to be broken and as the issues are complex and passion runs deep on both sides and they are unlikely to find a simple solution. As a westerner, I find no threat from Israel so would be very unlikely to wish my country to join in on a Coalition to Regime Change Israel. If they started flying planes into Canadian or US buildings and harbored those who did here then that attitude might change. In the meantime, Saddam was a threat to us, not to is sons, not to his family and Israel is not a teat to us or to any in the ME who don't attack her.

Now, if you want to talk about policy change on how Israel is allowed to go about annexing territory, then I'm probably in agreeance with you.

[Black Dog]

For example, Sven Robinson stole a ring. Will he get hard time? Doubt it. However, if a drug addict with a rap shett long as your arm did it, it would have a different outcome.

To borrow your (flawed) analogy, Robinson confessed, returned the property and took responsibility.

Israel, like Iraq, has lied, obstructed and flouted the law with respect to its (very real, very active) WMD program, yet it gets a free ride.

Now, I'm not campaigning for a violent regime change in Israel (as much as I would love to see Sharon dragged, dizzy and disoriented from a spider hole of his own), but I'm asking that the universally accepted standards of international law be applied equally.

Israel is a physical threat to none but those who attack her. All other problems with Israel are diplomatic and can be solved once her security issues are solved.

The law is not selective, but sets universal standards of conduct. Giving individuals or nations "get out of jail free" cards renders the law irrelevant and damages any authority or credibility we have to speak to moral matters.

[KrustyKidd]

History is overflowing with examples of worse tyrants than Saddam who have been consigned to the dustbin of history by thei rown people.

Got some examples we can look at and pick apart? This guy left nothing to chance in the coup dept. Name a few equivilents who devoted most of his resources to secret police so we can compare.

That said, you're ducking the question, which isn't whether the Iraqi people are better of without Saddam, but whether or not military force is the best way to implement democracy. To borrow a historical analogy, how different would U.S history be if, instead of a homegrown revolution overthrew the British, France came and kicked Britain out. How happy would the revolutionaries be to replace one occupier with another?

Like the French? If there was a media war going on in which the French stated over and over that they were ousting the British and laid down a timetable for their turning over power to an interim government which in turn would lead to elextions with the freedom for candidates to run on their own platform I don't see any problem. I do, however, understqand the impatience, the distrust as well. I am not stupid BD, I know the history same as you and the US's track record of supporting Dictators to get their own ends. This time as I have observed it would have been so much easier to simply oust Saddam and install their own Exilled Man and leave the entire Regime Structure intact from mid level down. For this reason and the stakes, they are doing this right and totally. That is why it disturbs me to see that they have brought back Regime Generals to take charge of some Iraqi Army units because they didn't take the right action to begin with. Vietnam all over again, they are afraid to do what it takes to win and thus, allow the media to whittle away at them instead of making a fast hard strike to take out people like Al Sadir before they grow strong using the Media.

[Black Dog]

Got some examples we can look at and pick apart? This guy left nothing to chance in the coup dept. Name a few equivilents who devoted most of his resources to secret police so we can compare.

Just off the top of my head, there was Roamania's Ceausescu, who controlled a formidable network of security and intelligence organizations and still fell. Hussein's regime would have fallen. Authoritarian dictatorships tend to have a limited life span (as limited as those of their rulers). There were many signs (including the practices of Iraqi scientists who conducted bogus WMD "development" at the state's expense; they just took th emoney) that the regime was rotting from within. Saddam's regime would have collapsed sooner ratehr than later. This natural process could have been facilitated by western support of the 1991 uprising or of internal resistance groups.

If there was a media war going on in which the French stated over and over that they were ousting the British and laid down a timetable for their turning over power to an interim government which in turn would lead to elextions with the freedom for candidates to run on their own platform I don't see any problem

Do you believe everything you read? War and occupation ar eusually accompanie dby high-minded rhetoric to the effect that the war/occupation is for the people's own good, or for democracy, or for the security of the nation. Such claims are always best taken with a grain of salt, at least.

For this reason and the stakes, they are doing this right and totally. That is why it disturbs me to see that they have brought back Regime Generals to take charge of some Iraqi Army units because they didn't take the right action to begin with. Vietnam all over again, they are afraid to do what it takes to win and thus, allow the media to whittle away at them instead of making a fast hard strike to take out people like Al Sadir before they grow strong using the Media.

I've heard the phrase "America is afraid to do what it takes to win" many times. What exactly does that mean?

[KrustyKidd]

ust off the top of my head, there was Roamania's Ceausescu, who controlled a formidable network of security and intelligence organizations and still fell. Hussein's regime would have fallen. Authoritarian dictatorships tend to have a limited life span (as limited as those of their rulers). There were many signs (including the practices of Iraqi scientists who conducted bogus WMD "development" at the state's expense; they just took th emoney) that the regime was rotting from within. Saddam's regime would have collapsed sooner ratehr than later. This natural process could have been facilitated by western support of the 1991 uprising or of internal resistance groups.

Ceausescu was Howdy Doody with a noodle whip compared to Saddam. Your argument is gargbage.

SADDAM 1

A high-ranking member of the Revolutionary Command, the head of the labor unions, the leading Shiite member of the Command, and twenty (20) others are then systematically and personally killed by Hussein and his top party officials. During the next few days, reports indicate that as many as 450 other military officers, deputy prime ministers, and "non-party faithful" were rounded up and killed. This purge insured Hussein's consolidation of power in Iraq.

Again, because it appeared that the Shiites could be a threat to his continued dictatorship, the Kurds (Iraqi minority) were sprayed with poison gas for participating with the Iranians in an attempted overthrow of his country.

SADDAM 2

Composed of between three and seven members, cells function at the neighborhood or the village level, where members meet to discuss and to carry out party directives. As in Communism, this type of organizational structure particularly rewards members who are intelligent, amoral and manipulative. Presently, about 10% of Iraqis are estimated to be Baath party members.

SADDAM 3

One of his first acts as President was to convene an assembly of Ba'ath party leaders on July 22, 1979 and have one of them read out the names of members that Saddam thought could oppose him. These members were labeled "disloyal" and were removed from the room one-by-one to face a firing squad. After the list was read, Saddam congratulated those still seated in the room for their past and future loyalty. The room erupted in applause and shouting in support of Saddam.

CEAUSECU

The armed forces, which had a history of intervention in politics before the advent of communist power, have been the only plausible threat to Ceausescu's rule since the late 1960s. He has frequently rotated cadres within the Ministry of National Defense and the top military command positions to prevent the emergence of strong, politically independent military leaders. And he has unceremoniously fired senior officers and promoted ambitious lowerranking officers to higher posts, thereby using his patronage to command their loyalty.

In 1971 forty general staff officers were purged and arrested, conceivably for plotting to overthrow Ceausescu. In May 1974, Ceausescu unexpectedly purged five senior commanders and in 1976 suddenly dismissed General Ion Ionita, his long-time political ally. Rumors of anti-Ceausescu conspiracies or attempted revolts within the military circulated freely in Romania in the 1980s. In 1983 an abortive military coup d'état was reportedly crushed and twelve officers were executed for plotting it.

Wow, that Ceausescu is a hard dictatror, he fires his guys leaving them to voice quiet dissent. No wonder there was enough dissent within the military to take the opportunity to side with the people in the revolt in '89. Uf they tried that in Iraq, Saddam would whack whole Battalions just to be safe.

No Black Dog, no comparrison. As a foot note, Saddam Sought Power, Ceausescu sought money.

Do you believe everything you read? War and occupation ar eusually accompanie dby high-minded rhetoric to the effect that the war/occupation is for the people's own good, or for democracy, or for the security of the nation. Such claims are always best taken with a grain of salt, at least.

Black Dog, I have held your intellectual attention fairly well so I assume that you know that I am not the village idiot. I don't buy rhetoric but rather investigate things best I can. I conceede points and even arguments when given information countering them that is irrefutable. I hope you know that from our discussions. I don't think it a sign of weakness but rather intelligence. I will come somewhat clean with you here and tell yu that no, I do not believe everything I read and read a lot, Chomsky, Moore, Hanitty, Savage, included. All of them while I'm waiting for something as they are .... all very one sided and can only be taken in small doses. War and occupation are usually accompanied by rhetoric yes, but the stakes are high here. Very high.

No, it was not done for oil, no, it was not done to promote US Hegemony, no, it was not done to safe guard WMD, no, it was not done to dispose Saddam and no, it was not done to free the Iraqi people. That is brain candy for idiots. There is a theological struggle happening here between people that are fairly free and people that are not. Of course, the ones that are somewhat free are the west and the ones that are not are the Middle Eastern Militents with the potential pool of millions of recruits trapped and waiting to see which way the wind blows. They are not free for various reasons, history, former French, Russian, German, US and Chinese aspirations of hegemony in which the US is better at than the rest, the oppressive nature of political systems in that region which rely on fear and disreguard for human right as well as the ferverent Religious beliefs that dictate daily life from dawn to the following dawn.

Add it all together and money is not the reason, rather survival of the human race. What do yu think the US would do if Al Queda gets hold of Pakistan's Nukes? What would Russia do if one of them were pointed or fired at them? Econonomic societies need peace to flourish, nuclear war or at best, instability does nothing to empower that.

I don't make any grand moral case for the USA, rather, the whole western world and in turn the Middle Eastern World are on a collision course born of theology, ancient and modern governmental systems and a mutual misunderstanding of each other. That was fine twenty years ago, now, with the weapons available to the east, nobody can afford a mistep and believe me, I sleep good with GW on the switch moreso than I would with Osama.

[Hugo]

Hussein's regime would have fallen. Authoritarian dictatorships tend to have a limited life span (as limited as those of their rulers).

Stalin reigned until his death and the USSR did not collapse after he died. He was succeeded by Kruschev and Brezhnev, who, while more moderate, still had no problem shooting people on occasion.

Mao Zedong also ruled until his death and was succeeded by Deng Xiaoping, who was more moderate, but still ordered the massacre of dissenting Chinese students in Tiananmen Square.

Kim Il-Sung was replaced by Kim Jong-Il. Ho Chi Minh was replaced by Ton Duc Thang. Hitler's reign was only ended by military force, had it not been, he would have almost certainly have ruled until his natural death and then been succeeded by Herman Goering, whose signature lies upon the orders for the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question."

History is replete with these examples. Perhaps Saddam would have been overthrown. It is more likely that he would not have been. Revolutions of this kind generally occur when the rulers are disinterested and detached (Louis XVI or Nicholas II), or when they are too liberal and fail to use sufficient brutal coersion to guarantee their rule (Gorbachev and contempary Communist leaders).

Saddam was neither of these things. Had the US not intervened, it is almost certain that his regime would have survived until his death at which point his sons would have succeeded him. How many thousands or millions of Iraqis would have died waiting for this dynasty to end?

[KrustyKidd]

How many thousands or millions of Iraqis would have died waiting for this dynasty to end?

Not sure Hugo but for sure it will always be a lot less than the numbers at IRAQIBODYCOUNT.COM

[Black Dog]

How many thousands or millions of Iraqis would have died waiting for this dynasty to end?

Okay, let's accept for a moment that Saddam's dynasty, despite its isolation from the world community, an atrophying military, a bloated beauracracy and the ongoing effects of 13 years of rigourous sanctions, was still poised to rule Iraq in perpetuity. That fact still doesn't make the concept of arbitrary "regime change" any more palatable.

As horrible as Hussein was, and as unpleasant as the thought of leaving him and his sadistic brood in power, the dictates of international law and simple common sense do not allow for his removal by an outside military force.

The broader issue is whether the U.S., by virtue of its military and economic might and self-proclaimed status as the world's moral policeman, has the right to impose "regime change" on any nation it sees fit.

Under international law (law to which the U.S. is signatory and therefore constrained by) nations may use military force only in self-defence (this was the rationale which was used to defend the invasion of Afghanistan).

Under the UN Charter, pre-emptive military strikes are permitted only when a direct attack is imminent, all other options have been exhausted and there is no time for deliberation (the Iraq invasion fulfilled none of these critera).

The laws against preemptive war were put in place for a good reason: they codified a standard of conduct that would prevent aggression and military expansionism of the sort that plunged the globe world into two bloody world wars in half a century. When nations violated that standard, the UN would act (the first Gulf War being a prime example).

Which brings us to Iraq as a humanitarian venture. There's no doubt the people of Iraq suffered terribly under Saddam Hussein and deserved (and still deserve) a chance to live in a free society without fear. But it is the (seemingly) complete arbitrainess of targets that condfounds this argument. Saddam was bad, but there are others who are equally awful, if not worse. One current friend of America is Uzbekistan's President Islam Karimov, who's deeds include arbitrary arrest, torture and extrajudicial killings of political opponents (including boiling prisoners to death). Last year, Washington gave Uzbekistan $500 Million in aid, $79 Million of which went staright to the police and security forces responsible for much of the regimes crimes. Currently, the U.S is building permemnant military bases in the Central Asian state taht will give them a strong foothold in the region and access to teh area rich natural resources.

What about Saudi Arabia? Remember? The monarchy that funded Al Q'aeda, spawned Osama bin Laden and several 9-11 hijackers, and represses its own people with torture and arrest? This brutal, repressive anti-democratic state still enjoys a cozy relationship with the U.S., a relationship reflected in the personal and business relationship between Saud Prince Abdullah and Bush (so cozy that Prince Abdullah wa sshown the plans for the Iraq invasion before Seceratary of State Colin Powell).

Don't the people of these countries deserve freedom too?

Evidently not.

Is it any wonder, then, that given America's past and current fondness for nuzzling and nurturing thugs and dictators around the globe, that their moral authority and motivatyions should be called into question?

As I said elsewhere, if the U.S. was genuinely interested in building Arab democracies, they would have started somewhere like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, where they could have used economic and political clout to leverage peaceful democratic reforms. Instead they chose to ram democracy down the throats of the Iraqi people in a flawed and ill-conceived and probably doomed adventure that has cost America its international credibility, post-9-11 sympathies, hundreds of lives and billions of dollars. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have lost their lives, the country is a lawless mess on the cusp of civil war and there seems to be no plan for the new, "democratic" Iraq.

[KrustyKidd]

It is not ONE FACTOR that made for this action Black Dog. You seem caught on this freedom thing and continually equate Iraq to Saudi or North Korea etc with the feel that we should do them. Heck, maybe the US will do them. I imagine that you woud approve too you warmonger. I'm sure LOL.

. There were many reasons thata made Iraq the subject of this action. Freedom, legality, moral justification, ability for the country to succeed as a democracy using it's industrial base-oil revenuse, proximity to other countries to spread ideology and such. You seem to get caught up in either one or another as a single issue when it was not.

Picture yourself on a lazy hot Saturday and lounging in the back yard you know that you have to go get a newspaper. No way, you think, not going to get dressed and into that damm hot car to drive two miles to the store for a paper.

Black Dogess comes up to you and says "I need a loaf of French Bread for supper." You think and no way are you going to town for that. Suddenly, you remember you are out of propane and the BBQ isn't going to happen. Heck you think, just order a pizza and lean back in the chair.

Black Dogess calls out from the kitchen "Only two beers left" Damm you think, not enough reason to go but then, reflecting on the other items, it makes enough justification to set the trip in motion and you get up and put a shirt on to start the trip into town.

Under international law (law to which the U.S. is signatory and therefore constrained by) nations may use military force only in self-defence (this was the rationale which was used to defend the invasion of Afghanistan).

Under the UN Charter, pre-emptive military strikes are permitted only when a direct attack is imminent, all other options have been exhausted and there is no time for deliberation (the Iraq invasion fulfilled none of these critera).

The UN with 678 and 686 687 and 1441 made that an exception. Tell me BD, if the UN said explicitly that 'Tthe USA can attack Iraq now' then it would be illeagal as the US was not acting in self defence. If Poland helped them under this approved UN mandate they too would be in violation.

What I am saying is that this was an acception penned by the UN istself and we have taken up a good amount of thread space on the other thread. Possibly we can combine these two discussion here?

[Hugo]

As horrible as Hussein was, and as unpleasant as the thought of leaving him and his sadistic brood in power, the dictates of international law and simple common sense do not allow for his removal by an outside military force.

Quite frankly, I have to say that international law is broken. Hussein was about to chair the international committee on disarmament, and that same body of international law has awarded Muammar Ghadaffi the chair on human rights. Israel has had countless resolutions passed against it, China, not a single one, despite their far more egregious and constant human rights violations.

This same international law has given us nothing but a facade behind which these disgusting excuses for human beings such as Hussein, Ghaddafi, or Castro can hide. You can imagine that, had the UN existed and had the same values as it does today, it would have sheltered Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Tojo in the same way.

Saddam was bad, but there are others who are equally awful, if not worse.

Oh, I agree. Had I been George W, I would have taken on Iran first. The Iranian regime is every bit as evil as Saddam's, but Iran is a clearly greater threat to world peace and a big sponsor of international terrorism. Or, as you say, perhaps democratic reform could have been achieved in friendly countries such as Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. The advantage of a military victory, I suppose, is that it is a show of strength for the other dictators of the world ("look how fast we tumbled Saddam - tomorrow it could be you") and, to the violent and militaristic Islamic world, it's a message couched in terms they understand. I think democracy and compassion are viewed as weaknesses by them, but military force is not.

Perhaps Saddam was not the best start but I think we can agree that, on a list of the world's most evil regimes, his was definitely somewhere in the Top 10.

Last year, Washington gave Uzbekistan $500 Million in aid, $79 Million of which went staright to the police and security forces responsible for much of the regimes crimes.

Yes, this is a problem, much like the sale of things like stun batons to China - what do they think these are going to be used for?

As the majority of the US economy is conducted internally, and the majority of foreign trade is with other democratic countries, and the Cold War is no longer being waged, I would definitely like to see a concerted effort to smoke out the world's dictators by economic, diplomatic and, if necessary, military means. I would like to think that ousting Saddam was a good start, however, given the growing negative feelings towards that campaign I'm sure that this progress will now sputter to a halt and the rest of the world's dictators will breathe a sigh of relief and get back to the business of torturing innocents and giving cash to terrorists.

[Black Dog]

. There were many reasons thata made Iraq the subject of this action. Freedom, legality, moral justification, ability for the country to succeed as a democracy using it's industrial base-oil revenuse, proximity to other countries to spread ideology and such. You seem to get caught up in either one or another as a single issue when it was not.

No I certainly recognize other factors were at play (of course, we would disagree on what they were), but the WMD was the main hook of the case against Iraq. When human rights, etc. were mentioned, they were usually tucked in after lofty appraisals of Saddam's WMD threat.

Quite frankly, I have to say that international law is broken. Hussein was about to chair the international committee on disarmament, and that same body of international law has awarded Muammar Ghadaffi the chair on human rights. Israel has had countless resolutions passed against it, China, not a single one, despite their far more egregious and constant human rights violations.

Of course there's room for improvement. I think much of the problem lies with the power of the Security Council, especially, especially the veto. But is that any reason to scrap the entire body of international law?

This same international law has given us nothing but a facade behind which these disgusting excuses for human beings such as Hussein, Ghaddafi, or Castro can hide. You can imagine that, had the UN existed and had the same values as it does today, it would have sheltered Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and Tojo in the same way.

The same argument can be made that China's atrocities, as well as thouse perpetrated by western nations go unpunished by virtue of the power disparity between east and west.

The advantage of a military victory, I suppose, is that it is a show of strength for the other dictators of the world ("look how fast we tumbled Saddam - tomorrow it could be you") and, to the violent and militaristic Islamic world, it's a message couched in terms they understand. I think democracy and compassion are viewed as weaknesses by them, but military force is not.

I disagree. While a military victory may look good on paper and for the cameras, the current situation in Iraq was utterly predictable (in fact, many on the anti-war side predicted a long, drawn out guerrilla conflict). I expect other nations on the U.S.'s hitlist are taking careful note of the Iraqi insurgency and preparing themselves accordingly.

As the majority of the US economy is conducted internally, and the majority of foreign trade is with other democratic countries, and the Cold War is no longer being waged, I would definitely like to see a concerted effort to smoke out the world's dictators by economic, diplomatic and, if necessary, military means.

I agree. Continued support of some of the world's worst regimes totally undermines the west's stated interest in spreading democracy. But it seems economic and political realities always trump human rights.

[KrustyKidd]

I expect other nations on the U.S.'s hitlist are taking careful note of the Iraqi insurgency and preparing themselves accordingly.

Yes indeed. Well noted Black Dog. I would suppose in order to minimize this problem the US would have to ensure that everything they do is on the up and up with their dealings from here on in. Full accountability for the prisoner thing and ensure that the transfer does go through as son as possible.

[Hugo]

I think much of the problem lies with the power of the Security Council, especially, especially the veto. But is that any reason to scrap the entire body of international law?

As it stands, I would say there is every reason to scrap the entire UN. It is corrupt and self-serving, too corrupt to reform itself because its ranks are filled with tinpot dictators and corrupt bureaucrats whose primary concern is their own continued prosperity, rather than international law and justice.

Most UN inverventions seem to result in expensive failures (like Somalia) or ineffectual pretentiousness (Kosovo). UN "human rights" bodies seem more concerned with getting more abortions for American women and making sure that nobody says anything about Western homosexuals, than trying to ensure that Chinese women stop being marched into abortion clinics at gunpoint and that Islamic nations stop executing homosexuals.

It's a farce, as surely as the belief that the US is the #1 concern for world peace when North Korea is busy building nukes, Iran is giving money, support and safe haven to any terrorist who asks, and India and Pakistan are constantly locking nuclear-tipped horns over Jammu Kashmir.

I would like to see a new international coalition whose members are entirely democratic. No dictatorships allowed, and no power of veto, as you suggest, since this really detracts from any idea of democracy if certain members have trump cards. The power of veto leads to greedy leaders like Chirac, Schroeder, Putin and Chretien abusing their power to maintain their lucrative contracts with evil dictators like Saddam despite the fact that Saddam is a known and self-confessed sponsor of terrorism and a violator of human rights on a biblical scale.

And yes, the US has been and still is guilty of this kind of behaviour and that should stop too. "No deal with evil" should be somebody's slogan.

I expect other nations on the U.S.'s hitlist are taking careful note of the Iraqi insurgency and preparing themselves accordingly.

The military victory itself was won speedily. Guerrilla resistance is usual, as it was in post-war Germany, or in South Vietnam and so on. Those who were devious and twisted enough to profit from an evil regime are unlikely to merely shrug their shoulders and say, "oh well, I suppose I'll just go quietly and open a grocery store or something."

The problem is not insurgency, as the US has the military power to stamp it out tomorrow if it wanted. The trouble, as in Vietnam, is the reaction back home. Saddam knew this even before the war, and that is why he did not use any WMD he may have had - he knew his only hope was to play innocent victim that the American people and other UN nations might have forced a withdrawal. He even counted on this in Gulf I, his prediction was that Coalition bombing would cause unacceptable civilian casualties and world opinion would force a withdrawal. He tried to exacerbate this effect with his policy of human shields, but due to the pinpoint accuracy of Coalition bombing it came to nothing - civilian casualties were very low.

I agree. Continued support of some of the world's worst regimes totally undermines the west's stated interest in spreading democracy. But it seems economic and political realities always trump human rights.

Well, as I've said, our libertarian society and culture depends on three key and separate elements: politics, economics, and ethics. When the first two trump the third, as they increasingly are, you have a problem.