The problems with reconstructing Iraq are beginning already

[Paul Victorey]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/25/sprj.irq.iraq.opposition/index.html

The Kurds are upset that they're not being allowed to take an active role in fighting Saddam. Of course, they shouldn't be allowed to take any part, because once they sieze land, good luck getting them to give it up again, and if they declared themselves independant, it would seriously destabilize the entire region.

It also shows how frustrated these groups will be when (not if) the US occupies Iraq and rules it for some time. I've heard 2 years, but it seems to me that to get Iraq to the point where it can be self-ruled in only 2 years would be nothing short of an act of God.

Further, this just lends strength to my belief that no matter what happens, we won't make any friends of anyone in Iraq, because no matter how much power any one group gets, they will always be upset that we kept them from taking more.

Getting Saddam out of power will be a cakewalk; replacing Saddam will be a nightmare.

[Xayd]

Agreed, that's my basis for being against the entire thing to begin with.

[Nuclear Krusader]

Ditto.

[TimPoet]

Originally posted by Paul Victorey
[url]Getting Saddam out of power will be a cakewalk; replacing Saddam will be a nightmare. At the risk of sounding like an opposer, getting him out will not be a cakewalk and replacing him with a democratic government will be a huge gift for the mideast.

[doctorgonzo]

Originally posted by TimPoet
At the risk of sounding like an opposer, getting him out will not be a cakewalk and replacing him with a democratic government will be a huge gift for the mideast.

Yes, IF Iraq becomes a true democracy, it will help in the Mideast. That is one very, very big if. Afghanistan hasn't turned out to be a democratic country; it's government is wholely ineffective outside of Kabul. The last thing we need is for Iraq to become like that: a functioning government in and around Baghdad, but a bit more anarchy in the rest of the country. If that happens, that will only serve to increase the ability for terrorists to hang around there.

[Statica]

The reason why such powers come to be in areas like these is because they have the ability to amalgamate the entire country under one banner. A lot of these areas are disillusioned by the western nations also because they have been subject to geographical demarcations that they never wanted in the first place, or havent been done so with too much forethought, or havent been done so with proper input from the indigenous population (possibly because there was no forum of polling public sentiment). It isnt necessarily about them believing in a different God, or looking upon the rest of the world as the unbelievers; it also has a lot to do within this century itself. Countries that have been ruled as a colony (for obvious benefit of the ruling country), rarely if ever look too kindly to the colonizers - especially if they cut the country up on the way out (it is a moot point to a lot of these people in these areas that it wasnt much of a country to begin with). If you look at the entire region, establishing a democracy might be a bit of a pipe dream. Most countries in this region have remained relatively stable under one strong power, regardless of the ascension to power. This ascension to power, has been as a result of weak monarchies as well, and in some cases weak democracies. This is also not a region that wants to be governed by secular laws either; there are a number of countries that wish to be governed by religious tenets as well, and it is also their prerogative to choose that. Democracies, military regimes and even monarchies have willingly accepted conversions to religious law as a means to stop tensions both internally and w/ neighbors (the only nation that is experimenting with democracy in the recent past is Bahrain - too inconsequential to be considered as a norm, especially since Bahrain is one of those Mid-east countries that does not produce oil) .. and in a lot of ways is the "Raiza" (From star trek) for that region .. both for US soldiers, as well as people from other nations.

If the re-building effort by the US has to succeed, then whoever it is that is going to spearhead it must be able to either be willing to stick it out, and face inevitable opposition to the change they will want to bring; or must be able to adapt a working model of what acceptable change for that reason is, forget the notions of creating a democracy that will be as far reaching as perhaps nations in N.America are; or hope like heck that the next regime change will bring out someone in power that is either afraid of the US or finds it in their best interest to take orders from the US (the latter will have stiff opposition from the people there).

[Hot Rod]

What bothers me is the fact that Bush wants to put an American in charge for a minimum of 2 years and then awards the Iraqi oil contract to Halliburton...who's former CEO is Dick Cheney.

Something seems terribly wrong about their plans and I am concerned about this.

[doctorgonzo]

The fact that Iraq is a geographical mishmash is very important. It exists as a country not because it makes sense, but because the British drew the lines that way.

One question that few people ask is why is Saddam the way he is? It is far too easy to say, "Well, he is evil, simple as that" and be done with it. Things are not that easy. Much more likely is that Saddam is the way he is because he has to be to control a country that has several groups of people that hate each other.

It would make sense to compare Iraq to Yugoslavia, another invented country that threw several distinct ethnic and religious groups together. When Tito ruled with an iron fist, there wasn't much internal strife because it was put down ruthlessly when it occurred. Groups got along because they were forced to. However, after the fall of Communism and the advent of democracy, the fear that kept these groups from fighting each other disappeared, and what do you know? They started fighting each other, viciously, to make up for years of resentment.

The same thing could easily happen in Iraq. There are simply too many groups, and too much resentment, to think that we can hold a few elections, call it a "democracy," and get out.

[Mac Medic]

Such a hatred for the US. Or is it just a fear of a republican government fighting yet another sucessful war?. We're there to liberate the Iraqi people, it doesn't matter if we make friends and inevitable that we won't. We are there because it's the right thing to do, to defend innocent people who have no way of defending themselves. To punish a regime for years of non-compliance. If we had leaders in the 1930's with the same resolve we do today, how many Jew's would have been spared torture and death?. But leave it to USA haters and these monsters would rule indefinately.

[Statica]

"Hatred to the US?" whom are these comments directed to? I see nothing in this thread about any USA bashing.

On the other hand, if you refer to the Mid-east people's hatred towards the US, then it might be worthwhile to check on their geopolitical and social history and try to have an understanding of what it is that makes them so mistrustful of the west. Only when that is done, and am sure it has been done by the powers that want to affect change, will there be any lasting peace in that region.

[doctorgonzo]

It is not hatred of the U.S. to think. It is not hatred of the U.S. to engage in a debate about possible outcomes to this war. Just because I don't believe the flowers-on-the-tanks, we-only-need-30-days optimism of the administration does not mean I "hate the U.S."

It is all well and good to say that we are "liberating" Iraqis, that we are "punishing" Saddam for non-compliance, and so forth. But this is not a video game that gets turned off once we kill the Big Boss. This is real life, and things are not that simple. Iraq will not default to a free, peace-loving democratic state once Saddam is gone. The world will not default to a safer place once Saddam is gone. There are a lot of questions about what will happen next, and asking them does not mean anybody hates the U.S.

[drisley]

I agree with that. Problem is those who are against the war for legit reasons get their credibility dashed by the more extremist folks who organize a lot of protests who certainly are anti-American. Here I'm talking about the communist and socialist parties, worker's world party, anti-capitalist groups, etc.

[Paul Victorey]

And it does the Iraqi people little good if they are "liberated" only to face decades of civil war or genocide.

I think occupying Iraq for only 2 years would be incredibly short -- it's all well and good to talk about democracy in Iraq, but democracy really falls apart when you have several groups (in this case, three) who are diametrically opposed on all issues. In such a case, whichever group has the majority gets 100% of the power, because they can vote anything into existence, and the minorities are stripped of all power, because their votes will always be overruled by the majority.

Rwanda was a democracy too, didn't stop them from having one of the worst cases of genocide in the past 20 years.

And compared to the sheer difficulty of rebuilding Iraq, getting Saddam out is by far the easy part.

And oem_guy, when the Republicans have a successful war, I'll think higher of them (and I'm a Republican, so no fair saying I'm just being partisan). The Gulf War was a failure, as if Bush Sr. had gotten Saddam, we wouldn't need to have bothered with the last 12 years of back and forth with Iraq. The war in Afghanistan was a failure -- the government we installed is useless beyond the borders of the capital, and we completely failed to get Bin Laden when we knew where he was. Bush was trying so hard to keep American soldiers from dying that he decided to leave the task of getting Bin Laden out of Tora Bora to the Northern Alliance, a half-trained army commanded by a smattering of local warlords who fight amongst themselves nonstop. Bin Laden could probably easily bribe his way past those guys; he might have found it harder to bribe US soldiers.

Now, I agree, we shouldn't waste soldiers unnecessarily, but when it comes down to it, sometimes we have to lose soldiers to gain our objective.

[Mac Medic]

The 1st war was a full success, every objective was met. It was never an objective to overthrow the regime. How you figure it was is beyond me. This time the objective is regime change, do you think that won't happen?.

[Paul Victorey]

Oh, I know *A* regime change will happen, but I think the objective is (or at least should be) more than just regime change -- it should be to install a GOOD regime, one that is democratic while at the same time preventing the nation from breaking into civil war or genocide. And, given the groups involved, it's practically certain that that is an impossible task.

So yes and no -- I think a regime change will happen, but I think it will only make a bad situation worse.

[Mac Medic]

Fair Enough, good answer and you're probably right, but we still have a responsibility to try to liberate the opressed, and to stand idly by and let this regime continue it's actions is in my opinion unforgivable and inhumane.

[Paul Victorey]

But toppling one bad regime only to instate a worse one is like throwing them out of the frying pan and into the fire. Before we go running off half-cocked to save the world, we should make sure we're actually saving people, and not simply condeming even more people.

Look at Afghanistan -- outside of Kabul, the Taliban laws still hold almost everywhere. Our new government has no strength at all, their decrees are ignored outside the capital city. All we've done is put into power a govenment so weak it can't even truly be called a national government. And given the Afghan's history of being organized as small clans ruled by warlords, we've pretty much guaranteed that the civil wars will go on for decades. The only reason the government is still there is because the warlords fear Karzai's US support. But that selfsame support weakens Karzai's government, because the Afghan people see this as a continuation of the foreign rule they fought so hard against.

[WJWheels]

Originally posted by Paul Victorey
Look at Afghanistan -- outside of Kabul, the Taliban laws still hold almost everywhere. Our new government has no strength at all, their decrees are ignored outside the capital city. The "new" Afghani government is only days old. One could have said the same thing in 1776 about the "new" U.S. government. It was 200 years before a man could safely walk down the street in "most" of the country without a 6-gun at his side.

So a worst scenario for Iraq would have Kurd, Shia, Sunni, & whatever else fighting each other into eternity. Even here the worst threat of today's Iraq (IMHO) would still have been eliminated. Saddam's chemical, biological, & developing nuclear threat would be gone and no longer available to share with terrorists.

[jbbrown211]

I don't think there will be anything simple about any of it. I'm for and against this at the same time, but it is in the best interest of the country. The problem is that some of them don't know it. We will have problems from the "natives" as long as we try to maintain a presence there in my opinion.

[Paul Victorey]

Originally posted by WJWheels
The "new" Afghani government is only days old. One could have said the same thing in 1776 about the "new" U.S. government. It was 200 years before a man could safely walk down the street in "most" of the country without a 6-gun at his side.

So a worst scenario for Iraq would have Kurd, Shia, Sunni, & whatever else fighting each other into eternity. Even here the worst threat of today's Iraq (IMHO) would still have been eliminated. Saddam's chemical, biological, & developing nuclear threat would be gone and no longer available to share with terrorists.

His government is about 10 months old, and it will fall in a heartbeat once the US withdraws troops; his government loses popularity daily; 95% of the country doesn't obey the government and more than 2/3 of the people in the one city he controls hate the new government.

And realistically, if Iraq does lapse into civil war, which seems difficult to avoid, how many Sunni, Shi'ite, and Kurd deaths are an acceptable price to pay for ridding the world of Saddam? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000?

[WJWheels]

Originally posted by Paul Victorey
His government is about 10 months old, and it will fall in a heartbeat once the US withdraws troops; his government loses popularity daily; 95% of the country doesn't obey the government and more than 2/3 of the people in the one city he controls hate the new government.

And realistically, if Iraq does lapse into civil war, which seems difficult to avoid, how many Sunni, Shi'ite, and Kurd deaths are an acceptable price to pay for ridding the world of Saddam? 10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000? Well, I admire your pessimism, but I happen to look at things in a bit of a brighter light. What if they form a wonderful 2 or 3 party government? What if no-one is killed? Remember I did say a "worst case scenario". And yes, I do think it's worth it to get rid of Saddam along with the certainty that his WMD eventually fall into the hands of international terrorists.

Umm... Saddam is the one with the track record of killing Iraqi citizens. It's much more probable that more would die leaving his regime in power than forming a new government.

[raftero]

i agree with wheels,and at least we won't have to worry about him selling wmd to some group to use on us or some other people.

[Paul Victorey]

Saddam didn't start the killings, they've gone on for centuries. He's just the current one doing them. In fact, compared to many, he's positively a moderate, in that he has waited for the groups to rebel before he attacks them. Saddam is more or less willing to not kill his people so long as they obey him unconditionally. There are far more people, though, who favor something akin to Hitler's "final solution", and simply want to eradicate every last member of the other groups. For as repressive as Saddam is, he's hands down better than those people.

Forming a stable democratic government in a country where severe ethnic hatreds exist is next to impossible. In fact, I can't think of a single good government that's formed under those circumstances.

The problems in Iraq run far deeper than Saddam, and for all his repressive behavior, he's kept the nation from tearing itself apart from civil war. Everybody is too afraid of him to rebel. Of course, their fear only makes them hate each other more, so although his cruel regime keeps the situation from exploding, it also makes the underlying problem worse.

But removing the only thing that prevents Iraq from self-destructing is not necessarily a wise move, especially as we cannot solve the root problems. I think all we're going to do is solve one small problem while making the big problems vastly worse.

[WJWheels]

Forming a stable democratic government in a country where severe ethnic hatreds exist is next to impossible.I think as long as we impress the Kurds as being their friends, things will work out. A good sign is that the "regular" Shia population is fighing the Al-qaeda linked Ansar al-Islam along with the Kurds and the U.S.

The Kurds have never gotten along with Saddam, and our allegiance with Turkey has turned them off to the U.S. The U.S. freeing them from Saddam's hold just might do wonders.

[Paul Victorey]

Yes, but the Sunni and Shia hate the Kurds as much as they hate each other, and the fact that we nailed Saddam will only be remembered so long, and then each group is going to try to grab as much power as they can, for fear that the other groups will do the same and succeed in repressing them. And as the US will be the ones to portion out power, each is going to despise the US for not giving them "what they deserve". The Kurds want land, independance, etc. and they aren't going to get either. The Sunni want to maintain their absolute control, which they won't get, and the Shia will expect to gain total control (being the majority), and if they get anything less, they'll feel we cheated them.

It is good that much of Iraq hates Al Quaeda, although the Kurds have too close of ties to them for my liking; especially things like this ricin factory in the Kurdish-controlled north, and some ties of several big Kurdish rebels to Al Quaeda.

In fact, the Kurds have had help from Al Quaeda in fighting Saddam, who is loathed by Al Quaeda. The Shia aren't too fond of Bin Laden, though, so ther won't be as much support from that side.

[Eaglefeather]

Paul you raise many valid points. No one ever said it would be easy. But don't you think it is at least worth a try?

These people have been fighting amongst themselves for a few hundred years. But they have always settling their differences through bloodshed which only leads to more bloodshed.

The Coalition has an opportunity here to try and bring these various warring sides together and sit them down at the discussion table. Ok none of them will get everything they want, but perhaps it will be possible to convince them that it is in their own best interests to try and come to an agreement they can all live with.

I don't see it as being impossible, just difficult. Everyone keeps refering to Afgahnistan and the shamozzle there. Well I do not want to insult their intelligence but this is not Afgahnistan, this is Iraq, an entirely different situation. Although on the surface they may look the same they are not.

Delicate diplomatic discussions will have to take place, but the US, Britain and many other countries have become quite expert in that area. The most important thing is that the outside forces must only act as advisors and keep the peace during the negotiating process. The negotiations and decisions must be, "made in Iraq".

I for one think it is worth the effort. The Iraqi people deserve a chance to try and reset their destiny. If it all collapses and goes to the devil, well at least we will have given it a good try. No one can ever fault an honest try.

[TimPoet]

Originally posted by Paul Victorey
Saddam didn't start the killings, they've gone on for centuries. He's just the current one doing them. In fact, compared to many, he's positively a moderate, in that he has waited for the groups to rebel before he attacks them. Saddam is more or less willing to not kill his people so long as they obey him unconditionally. Originally posted by Eaglefeather
Paul you raise many valid points. No one ever said it would be easy. Well, Paul does raise a lot of points, I will say that. As far as Saddam, the Butcher of Baghdad, who's killed hundreds of thousands of people and even has used WMD's against his own countrymen, I say he is far from being a moderate.

[Paul Victorey]

Saddam has killed thousands of people, but he has only killed the people who rebelled against him, and their families. As horrifying as that is, there are many Sunni who want every last Kurd and Shi'ite dead, they don't care whether they obey the government or not; they would kill over 70% of Iraq (over 15 million people).

For as bad as he is, none of the three groups has been ethnically cleansed or killed indiscriminantly. He has even done the best he can to unify Iraq under a single national identity, one of the only things that could possibly stabilize Iraq, because he doesn't want to rule over a people who are divided, and he doesn't want to have to kill 70% of his people to rule unopposed.

And Eaglefeather, it won't be like Afghanistan -- Afghanistan was a much easier situation to deal with, and it still fell apart. Iraq has far worse problems than Afghanistan ever did; I wouldn't expect it to be as easy.

I also don't think any non-Arab group can help Iraq solve its problems -- even if we are willing to help, our help would not be accepted.

[drisley]

You make a lot of assumptions, Paul. We shall see if you're right or not.

[shazam]

might not be hatred, but it sure is negative.

[Paul Victorey]

Originally posted by drisley
You make a lot of assumptions, Paul. We shall see if you're right or not.

I think I make very few assumptions. The ethnic problems are not assumtions, they're quite well known. The history of other nations (Yugoslavia, Rwanda) with similar problems are also not assumptions. The only real assumption is that Iraqis will respond in a typical manner, and I don't think it's an unreasonable assumption. There's no particular reason why Iraq will be the exception and not the rule, especially as I can't think of a single nation that truly overcame ethnic problems as serious as Iraq's.

Sure, there's always the chance that the universe blinks or something, and the improbable happens, and things go great, but if we actually bother to learn from history, it doesn't paint a promising picture.

[TimPoet]

Originally posted by Paul Victorey
Saddam has killed thousands of people, but he has only killed the people who rebelled against him, and their families. Wrong. He killed hundreds of thousands of people.
Paul, your arguments take a distinctive tone. They discount facts you oppose and inflame ideas you hold dear. Ever read the Politics Of Rhetoric?
To talk lightly of the murder of hundreds of thousands of lives is not a good thing.

[Paul Victorey]

I don't speak lightly of their deaths, and of course I wish that Iraq would be free of its problems, but no matter how Saddam had chosen to rule, there would have been mass bloodshed. The specifics would have changed, the individuals who did the killing and who got killed might have been different, but some variation on that old story would have played out, no matter what.

Of course his government is not a good one, but I don't think Iraq will have a GOOD government for a very, very long time. Iraq has far too many problems for people to simply get along peacefully; each group has suffered too much to just give up their hatreds that easily. People won't forget centuries of hatred overnight, nor will hatreds be dropped because a regime changes. The hatreds existed long before Saddam was born, and will most likely continue long after he dies.

As evil as he is, he is not the worst of possible rulers, and, considering the realistic means by which one can rule a nation like Iraq, he's sadly probably the lesser of the possible evils.

Every problem may have solutions, but not every problem has a GOOD solution, and I think that is definately the case with Iraq.

[TimPoet]

He is among the dregs of the rulers of the world.

[Paul Victorey]

Yes, but I think anyone that actually possesses the ability to more or less unify Iraq under a single government will have to be one of the dregs of the world leaders.

Again, Tim, I've never said he was a good leader. I said he's the least evil kind of leader one can expect given the problems Iraq has.

[drisley]

I'm not sure where you get that idea. I mean, yes, the different ethnic groups in Iraq are common knowledge. But, the extent to which that will prove a problem is nothing but speculation at this point. And your assumption that this will be worse than Aphganistan is also speculation. The thing which rides in Iraq's favor is that they have a lot of wealth (comparitively) and have a decently sized middle-class populace. That can make a real difference whereas in Aphganistan almost everyone was dirt poor.

I don't believe anyone has ever said it would be easy as pie to put in a replacement gov't or get the people to form one, but that has no bearing on the fact that Saddam was no longer a viable option for them or the rest of the world. You can't praise a guy for unifying a country when his method for unification was to gas them if they didn't comply.

[Paul Victorey]

Well, there are three primary ways of unifying a populaiton quickly:

1) A shared enemy
2) Religion
3) Fear

#1 is not really an option; their 4 possible enemies are the US, Israel, Kuwait, and Iran. Kuwait and Iran are also not good choices because they are of the same ethnic groups as Iraqis, not a good way to unify. Further, the last wars with Iran and Kuwait went badly. Israel is a bad choice because Israel has never directly attacked Iraq, so although the people may dislike Israel, they don't see them as a pressing threat. They may see the US as a threat, but Saddam can't win against the US, and he knows it, so ruling his people by making an enemy of the US is not possible.

Similarly, religion is not a possible means of unifying the people, because the people will not agree on the interpretation of Islam to use. Saddam does try to use pan-Islamic ideas, but they aren't very successful at unification.

That leaves the last option, frighten the people into obedience. Saddam used that method, and it worked.

Also, Drisley, and others, please read my entire posts. I am not praising Saddam. I don't like him, I don't think he's a good ruler. But I also think he's no worse than any other possible ruler would have been, given the problems.

And drisley, the extent of the problem has already been shown, the ethnic groups have already caused problems throughout all of Iraq's existence, and even before the British created that nation.

[mr krinkle]

I think Bush made a huge mistake,He pushed forward on this lopsided war that almost everyone knew would be easy and most of the world was against it..But its almost over now,How will the USA look if they find Few or no Weapons of MD?How long will be over there? And most important,Are we safer from a terrorist attack than we were before 9-11? My gut feeling says we are not. So why did we attack them?

[drisley]

You're gut feeling is likely wrong. But, really, only God knows what we are preventing by doing this now.

[TimPoet]

Originally posted by Paul Victorey
Also, Drisley, and others, please read my entire posts. I am not praising Saddam. I don't like him, I don't think he's a good ruler. But I also think he's no worse than any other possible ruler would have been, given the problems. I have read all of all of your posts, Paul. But the above point you make is astounding.
Your statement is a reductionism of all the evil that Saddam has done. You have taken the grossly immoral acts he did and removed the responsibility of them from him and placed it on the circumstance of the type of people he rules.
It is dangerous to take evil and strip it of its, well, evil.
I mean you do agree there is a definite good and evil in this world, don't you?

[mr krinkle]

Does the Bush regime have evidence that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11?

[Paul Victorey]

Originally posted by TimPoet
I have read all of all of your posts, Paul. But the above point you make is astounding.
Your statement is a reductionism of all the evil that Saddam has done. You have taken the grossly immoral acts he did and removed the responsibility of them from him and placed it on the circumstance of the type of people he rules.
It is dangerous to take evil and strip it of its, well, evil.
I mean you do agree there is a definite good and evil in this world, don't you?

Yes, but not every problem has a moral solution. There are times when every single choice you have is evil. Saddam's only viable moral decision would have been to not participate in the leadership of Iraq at all, and let someone else do the immoral acts.

[TimPoet]

Originally posted by Paul Victorey
Yes, but not every problem has a moral solution. There are times when every single choice you have is evil. Saddam's only viable moral decision would have been to not participate in the leadership of Iraq at all, and let someone else do the immoral acts. Every problem whose solution ended up in murder has a moral solution.
Saddam's only viable moral decision? Ugh. That's reductionism. One needs to be careful of "Yes, but" statements.

[Paul Victorey]

What about problems where every possible solution involves murder of someone? Life isn't obligated to provide moral alternatives, and often it doesn't.

[TimPoet]

Originally posted by Paul Victorey
What about problems where every possible solution involves murder of someone? Life isn't obligated to provide moral alternatives, and often it doesn't. Thou shalt not murder. You just don't do it.
Bush would never gas a couple thousand Americans. If one thinks the only option in a situation is whether to murder three or just two, then one is not thinking correctly, but evilly.
Now, killing for self defense or in defense of the innocent is different. If Drisley was shooting at you and Hal shot him dead. Hal would be innocent of murder. Saddam is not innocent to the slightest degree. Remember the evil of the politics of rhetoric.

[Paul Victorey]

Of course you SHOULDN'T murder, and of course it's immoral. But sometimes, life doesn't give you any moral choices.

If you had to choose between brutally killing rebels, or allowing the rebellion to plunge the entire nation into endless civil war, there isn't a good choice.

There exist situations in which you are damned every way you look at it, and there are cases in which there ARE no morally acceptable choices available.

[TimPoet]

Saddam had a choice before he gassed the tens of thousands of Kurds and before he slayed the hundred thousand Shiites. He could have stepped down. There is no moral excuse for his crimes. He is utterly condemnable. In some situations there is only a black and a white. This is one of them.

[Paul Victorey]

Yeah, he could have stepped down and let someone else kill the Kurds or Shiites, but that wouldn't have saved either the Kurds or Shiites, because whoever replaced him would have the same options as he did.

[TimPoet]

no, the new one wouldn't have to be evil like Saddam. one cannot so easily absolve Saddam of hundreds of thousands of murders. it's disturbing when one tries so hard to do so.

[Paul Victorey]

He would either be evil by repressing a rebellion or evil by allowing the rebellion to plunge the country into civil war. In such a case, there are no good decisions.

Nobody is absolving anyone of anything. I'm only saying that, given the ethnic hatreds, one group would be killing another no matter who was in charge or what was happening. Saddam doesn't have the power to stop the killings, he only has the power to choose who is the killer and who is the killed.

[AlwaysUp]

Paul, Paul...you argue eloquently....just too long, IMHO. Saddam and his son's have killed for the fun of it. How can you make the assinine statement that he only killed those who rebelled against him or their families? That is by far the least defensible statement you have ever made in this whole forum! Watch the interviews of those who spent time in the torture prisons that they are televising recently. Do you think those boxes and boxes of human remains with all their pictures and handwritten records were just his rebellious enemies? Do you think there might have been a woman or two that his sicko sons just wanted to rape that day? Your tone sounds like you almost are defending this guy!

[TimPoet]

It is amazing and infuriating how his tone and stance makes it seems he supports Saddam. Everything evil about him he discounts and everything good about America he deflates. It disturbs me.

[Paul Victorey]

Originally posted by AlwaysUp
Paul, Paul...you argue eloquently....just too long, IMHO. Saddam and his son's have killed for the fun of it. How can you make the assinine statement that he only killed those who rebelled against him or their families? That is by far the least defensible statement you have ever made in this whole forum! Watch the interviews of those who spent time in the torture prisons that they are televising recently. Do you think those boxes and boxes of human remains with all their pictures and handwritten records were just his rebellious enemies? Do you think there might have been a woman or two that his sicko sons just wanted to rape that day? Your tone sounds like you almost are defending this guy!

Actually, those boxes of human remains were Iranians and Iraqis who died in the Iran-Iraq war, according to the US govt. Iran and Iraq are still exchanging bodies and POWs from that war, and that was one of the places they were keeping bodies they were exchanging, according to CNN and their US/British military sources.

And for god's sakes, I DON'T LIKE SADDAM. He's a terrible person. But it's absurd to think that all of Iraq's problems are solely the cause of one bad person, and that without one person the country will be a paradise. The biggest problems Iraq faces existed long before Saddam was even born, and there's no reason to think they'll just vanish when he's gone. I just despise how people can look at a situation, see the most obvious problem, and then think that that single problem is the ONLY thing that is wrong. Sure, Saddam is a problem. And if we make one problem better but a deeper problem worse, did we really accomplish anything?

Further, I think that had Iraq had a good and just leader, that leader would very quickly find a bullet in his head. In a similar situation, Pres. Habyarimana of Rwanda was murdered by his own top aides because they suspected he might be planning to implement a peace accord and try to resolve the ethnic problems in his nation. Had Saddam truly tried to be a good leader, his own party members (or hell, his own children) would have killed him in a heartbeat.

[AlwaysUp]

I give up Paul. You're right. There is nothing that can or should be done. We should butt out, and never look any further upon the world than our own borders, for there is always a consequence for any action and never a consequence for doing nothing. You're right, you're right.... never undertake anything for fear of something worse in it's place. I agree. ............NOT!

[AlwaysUp]

It occurs to me that self loathing is NOT my bag.

[Paul Victorey]

Originally posted by AlwaysUp
I give up Paul. You're right. There is nothing that can or should be done. We should butt out, and never look any further upon the world than our own borders, for there is always a consequence for any action and never a consequence for doing nothing. You're right, you're right.... never undertake anything for fear of something worse in it's place. I agree. ............NOT!

I never said we should or could do nothing. I just think the "solution" we've come up with doesn't even begin to address the root problem, and I think we're being decieved if we think that one regime change will solve the problem. I think we SHOULD be involved in the world, but I also think we should carefully examine what we're doing to make sure we're not only making problems worse.

I'm not even against taking Saddam out by force, I think it's probably the only viable option, but without addressing the main problems, I think it's much more likely to cause harm. My analogy would be like pulling the knife out of someone who's been stabbed -- it's something that has to be done, but if you're not careful about how you pull it out, or when, you're more likely to kill the person than save them. I agree that Saddam must ultimately be removed, and it's obvious only a war could accomplish that, but I think the knife is being pulled out in the wrong way at the wrong time.

[WJWheels]

Originally posted by AlwaysUp
It occurs to me that self loathing is NOT my bag. But never it be said you have no right or reason to... :D (sorry! couldn't resist..)

[avx]

I dont think you guys should be so hard on Paul...He hasnt by any means taken any sides. He is just speaking on facts, and has an EXTREMELY level head...Even to me I think hes a being a little TOO level headed...But I dont think we need to start elluding to something like "He agrees with Saddam" or something. Its good to be level headed...but its not bad to be bias in certain situations, and in my opinion this would be one of them...But that indeed is JUST ME.

I just hate when people have an objective stance, and all of a sudden people start turning on them...Like the Richard Geere thing, or the Dixie Chicks...So what if they arnt 100% gung ho about the war...as long as they know that America is indeed right, and they are backing us...Thats all I care about... have your objections...Just know when its time to turn on the enemy...not your country.

[AlwaysUp]

WJWheels, remember, I'm a Republican....we elephants do have long memories! LOL:D (No offense taken)

[AlwaysUp]

BTW, Wheels, I wish I knew half what you obviously do about making avatars......if you have any good links for tutorials I could use them. I do have PainShop Pro (no typo)but layers, vectors, opaque and words like that stump me!

[TimPoet]

Originally posted by avx487
I dont think you guys should be so hard on Paul......But I dont think we need to start elluding to something like "He agrees with Saddam" or something. Please don't get me wrong. I didn't allude to Paul agreeing with Saddam. I said his tone and stance makes it seem he supports Saddam.
I would dearly like to believe otherwise.

[Jackblack]

Syria is all but giving Bush the wedgie of his life, I've never seen so much baiting, they've called for suicide bombers, they've flung dung in his face, but so far, the official word is, no, we won't touch them, even when Syria reports something like this yesterday.<p>

"Vis-a-vis the current criminal aggression on Iraq, the world has to act in a practical manner to stop the war criminals. The US-British aggression seems to be worse than the Nazis. In the Second World War, the West stood in confrontation of Hitler. Now, Bush is acting worse than Hitler. The world, in the foremost among whom being all advocates of peace and democracy, must build their alliance to stop the new Hitler. The West, China, Japan and other freedom-loving nations elsewhere must close ranks to stop the Chief Cowboy, Bush. We believe that this Cowboy is able to light his cigar without putting the whole forest on fire!!! Don't let this war criminal at large!"
<p>
My thoughts on all this are that the original plan WAS to take Syria, but since the Iraqi war was so much more than they bargained for, they're not going to be ready to jump into another one anytime so soon. So Syria sticks out her tounge, waggles her ears and laughs, knowing nothing's going to happen. There's always next year, guys.