11 myths of iraqi war

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by Said1:
Sweet, semantics.

Do a little more study. You will see this isn't always the case as you are asserting.

And back to one of my original points, the results were not mostly "catastrophic".

Sweet, we’re back to namecalling game again.
However, I’m not interested in that since I’ll win anyways, so let’s get on with the discussion at hand, shall we? Here are some figures:
Successful regime change projects:
Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954.
Both were orchestrated by the CIA, both installed regimes friendly to Washington, both had a very limited backing of the local populace, mainly because of their disdain for human rights.
Iran, in the longterm, backfired on America (much like Indonesia did on the Netherlands): an anti-American Islamic radical regime overthrew the Shah of Iran in 1979 and remains to this day.
Guatamala on the other hand, turned out into a real success story over time, ousting it’s pro-American dictators, and is now a true democracy.

Catastrophic regime change projects:
Chili, 1973, America backed the military coup to overthrow the democratically elect president Allende and install the American-friendly brutal dictator Augusto Pinochet. Pinochet imprisons well over a hundred thousand of people (torture and rape are the usual methods of interrogation), terminates civil liberties, abolishes unions, extends the work week to 48 hours, and reverses Allende's land reforms and ended up ruling Chili for nearly two decades, until 1990.

Haiti, being occupied by America for 19 years from 1915 to 1934, which destroyed most of Haiti’s education systems, was in for a whole lot more American interventions.
Several years later, in 1957, Papa Doc, or Dr. Francois Duvalier, installed a military dictatorship, which led to a braindrain besides all the murder and corruption. Papa Doc’s power was replaced to his son, Baby Doc, in 1971, and the Duvalier family stayed in power until 1986. After a few years of recouperating, the Haitian people managed to get a constitution and free elections, in which popularly elected (67% of the votes) leftist priest, Jean-Bertrand Aristide came to power in december, 1990.
Bring in the American policy of regime change once again, as America backed military dictator Dr. Roger Lafontant violently overthrew the democratically elect government of Aristide. The military dictatorsip led to a large-scale exodus of boat people, most of them rescued by the US coast guard.

The military dictatorship was finally broken by a UN resolution that called for any means necessary to overthrow them. A multinational force did exactly this, and the 1996 elections were the first in Haiti’s history in which two democratically elect governments succeeded one another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Haiti


Panama, after first backing the former Panama secret service and former CIA operative and thus America-friendly Manuel Noriega as president, relations turned sour after a while. America’s hardline stance on drug trafficing was followed in 1989 by an American invasion codenamed “Operation Just Cause”, which replaced Noriega by Guillermo Endara, who was elected president at a US army base. Drug trafficing has risen since.

Grenada, after gaining it’s independence in 1974 under the leadership of Eric Gairy, his government became increasingly authoritarian, prompting a bloodless coup d’etat in 1979 by the charismatic and popular left wing leader Marice Bishop. By 1983, a Stalinist group ensued a bloody coup to overthrow Marice Bishop’s government, and an American invasion was the result, installing an American friendly government once more.

El Salvador, 1980, a right-wing junta takes over leading to America massively supporting the country, assisting the military in its fight against FMLN guerrillas. Death squads proliferate; Archbishop Romero is assassinated by right-wing terrorists; 35,000 civilians are killed in 1978-81. The rape and murder of four US churchwomen results in the suspension of US military aid for one month. America demands that the junta undertake land reform. Within 3 years, however, the reform program is halted by the oligarchy.

Puerto Rico, after taken in 1898 from the Spanish, American rule of Puerto Rico has intersected between exploitation, imperialism and racism; classical colony rule. The nation’s economy has been devastated by tax exemptions to American companies, whereas the Puerto Ricans have opposed this colonial rule from the beginning to this day.

Nicaragua, has seen U.S. military interventions and lengthy periods of military dictatorship, the most infamous being the rule of the Somoza family (supported by successive U.S. governments) for much of the early 20th century.
Infamous Sumoza members (period of rule): Anastasio Somoza García (1937-1947, 1950-1956), Luis Somoza Debayle (1956-1963) and Anastasio Somoza Debayle (1967-1972, 1974-1979).
The Sumoza family rule was finally ended in 1979 after a brief civil war, and the victorious Sandista National Liberation Front rule Nicaragua for the next 12 years. The Sandinistas inherited a country in ruins, with a debt of 1.6 billion US dollars, an estimated 50,000 war dead, 600,000 homeless, and a devastated economic infrastructure.

Because it was a leftist political party, it was opposed by the US which subsequently funded the Contra’s, and strangled the Nicaraguan economy with trade embargos. The CIA disrupted shipping by placing underwater mines in Nicaragua’s harbour, an action condemned by the World Court as illegal (not that the US cares about the World Court).

After a full year of sponsoring the Contra’s while reports of their atrocities included rape, torture and indiscriminate attacks on civilians, the US state department finally declared the Contra’s to be terrorists, under pressure of the US Congress.

On top of that, current director of National Intelligence for the United States, John Negroponte was involved in covert funding of the Contras in Nicaragua and covered up human rights abuses carried out by CIA trained operatives in Honduras in the 1980s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somoza
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandinista_National_Liberation_Front

Cuba, Fulgencio Batista installed a dictatorial oppressive regime in 1952, which led to many guerillia groups, most notably that of Fidel Castro. After a short exile, Castro returned in 1956 and with popular backing overthrew Batista’s government.

Cuba was forced by the US to produce nothing but sugar, and most companies in the country were US based. Castro opposed this, which led to rapidly deteriorating relations. After a while, Castro stated his ideology to be communism , trading Soviet support for more US opposition. This led to the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, a grand failure by any standard. The Soviet Union began constructing nuclear missile sites on Cuba, which led to the Cuban Missile Crisis, the closest the world has been to a nuclear holocaust.
The Soviet Union backed down, in return for the American promise to remove it’s nuclear missiles from Turkey and to never invade Cuba again.

The collapse of the Soviet Union, multiple CIA operations in the country to execute Castro, combined with Castro’s numerous executions of “US backed terrorists” have resulted in the present state of Cuba which is the worst in the Western hemisphere.
Under Castro, Cuba is not fairing much better than under Batista.

Somalia, 1993, while a multinational UN force was getting bogged down, the US sent additional forces to help with stabilizing efforts. What began as a humanitarian mission that saved millions from starvation, ended in a nation-building tragedy.
US forces utterly destroyed a building, thought to be the safe-house of General Mohammed Farrah Aidid’s forces (responsible for the killing of 24 Pakistani troops of the UN forces in the area) – sadly this was not the case. Instead, inside were 50 clan elders of Somalian tribes that were discussing a peaceful solution to the civil war in Somalia. The killing of the clan elders escalated the conflict, resulting in angry mobs that agressively attacked the remaining US and UN forces.

Then of course, during the Korean and Vietnam war, there were those in favour of regime change, General Douglas McArthur in Korea, Barry Goldwater in Vietnam. I almost forget, the Reagan administration funded both Iraq and through the Contra’s from Nicaragua Iran (Iran-contra affair) in their eight year war, profiting greatly from the mutual slaughter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regime_change

So, what was I saying again?

Originally Posted by Harmageddon:
These revolutions, as the word means, were instigated by the local populace to overthrow their own (installed) regimes. Mostly this happened after years of growing oppression by their dictators.
Installed regimes have continuously been overthrown, and as the word implies, were installed (mostly by force).

Indeed, it seems to be exactly as I was “asserting”.

In all fairness, this biased view of catastrophic regime change - all instigated by America - is only half the story. We've had the European colonial age, which also resulted eventually of the ousting of dictatorial installed regimes. And least I forget, the Soviet Union's regime change programs were equally catastrophic, and have devastated Eastern European countries for decades. After the fall of the Soviet Union, these have all gone through revolutions to install a more democratic regime, with varying degrees of success.

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by Bonnie:
Shock and awe is not what I meant by setting an example for freedom, my point was (and I think you already knew this but I'll answer anyway) was that when Iraq does establish their own free government whatever form that happens to take it will still be one they elect to have and so it would be this that sets precedent for other countries in the region.

I know full well that you refer to the current elections, that have surprisingly been called fraudulent, for in numerous provinces there were more votes than people. Maybe Iraq will be free this time around, but like I said, they have had free elections before under British Rule, which were basically not free at all, just fraudulent façade to give the people a sense of freedom. All the British really needed was for the population to stop complaining as they started shipping cheap oil out of Iraq.

So what regions are you saying would be in dire need of more meddling: Iran? Who’s current regime of Islamic hardliners was installed as a reaction to the US backed dictatorial Shah? What makes you believe this time around a single nation, such as America, has the best interest of some foreign country at heart? Bush’s honesty, compared to Reagan’s, Clinton’s or whatever previous president’s or Western or Soviet regime changes?

 

[Said1]

Sweet, we’re back to namecalling game again.
However, I’m not interested in that since I’ll win anyways, so let’s get on with the discussion at hand, shall we? Here are some figures:
Successful regime change projects:
Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954.
Both were orchestrated by the CIA, both installed regimes friendly to Washington, both had a very limited backing of the local populace, mainly because of their disdain for human rights.
Iran, in the longterm, backfired on America (much like Indonesia did on the Netherlands): an anti-American Islamic radical regime overthrew the Shah of Iran in 1979 and remains to this day.
Guatamala on the other hand, turned out into a real success story over time, ousting it’s pro-American dictators, and is now a true democracy.

Catastrophic regime change projects:
Chili, 1973, America backed the military coup to overthrow the democratically elect president Allende and install the American-friendly brutal dictator Augusto Pinochet. Pinochet imprisons well over a hundred thousand of people (torture and rape are the usual methods of interrogation), terminates civil liberties, abolishes unions, extends the work week to 48 hours, and reverses Allende's land reforms and ended up ruling Chili for nearly two decades, until 1990.

Haiti, being occupied by America for 19 years from 1915 to 1934, which destroyed most of Haiti’s education systems, was in for a whole lot more American interventions.
Several years later, in 1957, Papa Doc, or Dr. Francois Duvalier, installed a military dictatorship, which led to a braindrain besides all the murder and corruption. Papa Doc’s power was replaced to his son, Baby Doc, in 1971, and the Duvalier family stayed in power until 1986. After a few years of recouperating, the Haitian people managed to get a constitution and free elections, in which popularly elected (67% of the votes) leftist priest, Jean-Bertrand Aristide came to power in december, 1990.
Bring in the American policy of regime change once again, as America backed military dictator Dr. Roger Lafontant violently overthrew the democratically elect government of Aristide. The military dictatorsip led to a large-scale exodus of boat people, most of them rescued by the US coast guard.

The military dictatorship was finally broken by a UN resolution that called for any means necessary to overthrow them. A multinational force did exactly this, and the 1996 elections were the first in Haiti’s history in which two democratically elect governments succeeded one another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Haiti


Panama, after first backing the former Panama secret service and former CIA operative and thus America-friendly Manuel Noriega as president, relations turned sour after a while. America’s hardline stance on drug trafficing was followed in 1989 by an American invasion codenamed “Operation Just Cause”, which replaced Noriega by Guillermo Endara, who was elected president at a US army base. Drug trafficing has risen since.

Grenada, after gaining it’s independence in 1974 under the leadership of Eric Gairy, his government became increasingly authoritarian, prompting a bloodless coup d’etat in 1979 by the charismatic and popular left wing leader Marice Bishop. By 1983, a Stalinist group ensued a bloody coup to overthrow Marice Bishop’s government, and an American invasion was the result, installing an American friendly government once more.

El Salvador, 1980, a right-wing junta takes over leading to America massively supporting the country, assisting the military in its fight against FMLN guerrillas. Death squads proliferate; Archbishop Romero is assassinated by right-wing terrorists; 35,000 civilians are killed in 1978-81. The rape and murder of four US churchwomen results in the suspension of US military aid for one month. America demands that the junta undertake land reform. Within 3 years, however, the reform program is halted by the oligarchy.

Puerto Rico, after taken in 1898 from the Spanish, American rule of Puerto Rico has intersected between exploitation, imperialism and racism; classical colony rule. The nation’s economy has been devastated by tax exemptions to American companies, whereas the Puerto Ricans have opposed this colonial rule from the beginning to this day.

Nicaragua, has seen U.S. military interventions and lengthy periods of military dictatorship, the most infamous being the rule of the Somoza family (supported by successive U.S. governments) for much of the early 20th century.
Infamous Sumoza members (period of rule): Anastasio Somoza García (1937-1947, 1950-1956), Luis Somoza Debayle (1956-1963) and Anastasio Somoza Debayle (1967-1972, 1974-1979).
The Sumoza family rule was finally ended in 1979 after a brief civil war, and the victorious Sandista National Liberation Front rule Nicaragua for the next 12 years. The Sandinistas inherited a country in ruins, with a debt of 1.6 billion US dollars, an estimated 50,000 war dead, 600,000 homeless, and a devastated economic infrastructure.

Because it was a leftist political party, it was opposed by the US which subsequently funded the Contra’s, and strangled the Nicaraguan economy with trade embargos. The CIA disrupted shipping by placing underwater mines in Nicaragua’s harbour, an action condemned by the World Court as illegal (not that the US cares about the World Court).

After a full year of sponsoring the Contra’s while reports of their atrocities included rape, torture and indiscriminate attacks on civilians, the US state department finally declared the Contra’s to be terrorists, under pressure of the US Congress.

On top of that, current director of National Intelligence for the United States, John Negroponte was involved in covert funding of the Contras in Nicaragua and covered up human rights abuses carried out by CIA trained operatives in Honduras in the 1980s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somoza
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandinista_National_Liberation_Front

Cuba, Fulgencio Batista installed a dictatorial oppressive regime in 1952, which led to many guerillia groups, most notably that of Fidel Castro. After a short exile, Castro returned in 1956 and with popular backing overthrew Batista’s government.

Cuba was forced by the US to produce nothing but sugar, and most companies in the country were US based. Castro opposed this, which led to rapidly deteriorating relations. After a while, Castro stated his ideology to be communism , trading Soviet support for more US opposition. This led to the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, a grand failure by any standard. The Soviet Union began constructing nuclear missile sites on Cuba, which led to the Cuban Missile Crisis, the closest the world has been to a nuclear holocaust.
The Soviet Union backed down, in return for the American promise to remove it’s nuclear missiles from Turkey and to never invade Cuba again.

The collapse of the Soviet Union, multiple CIA operations in the country to execute Castro, combined with Castro’s numerous executions of “US backed terrorists” have resulted in the present state of Cuba which is the worst in the Western hemisphere.
Under Castro, Cuba is not fairing much better than under Batista.

Somalia, 1993, while a multinational UN force was getting bogged down, the US sent additional forces to help with stabilizing efforts. What began as a humanitarian mission that saved millions from starvation, ended in a nation-building tragedy.
US forces utterly destroyed a building, thought to be the safe-house of General Mohammed Farrah Aidid’s forces (responsible for the killing of 24 Pakistani troops of the UN forces in the area) – sadly this was not the case. Instead, inside were 50 clan elders of Somalian tribes that were discussing a peaceful solution to the civil war in Somalia. The killing of the clan elders escalated the conflict, resulting in angry mobs that agressively attacked the remaining US and UN forces.

Then of course, during the Korean and Vietnam war, there were those in favour of regime change, General Douglas McArthur in Korea, Barry Goldwater in Vietnam. I almost forget, the Reagan administration funded both Iraq and through the Contra’s from Nicaragua Iran (Iran-contra affair) in their eight year war, profiting greatly from the mutual slaughter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regime_change

So, what was I saying again?


Indeed, it seems to be exactly as I was “asserting”.

In all fairness, I have to add the Soviet Union's regime change programs as well, that have devastated Eastern European countries for decades. After the fall of the Soviet Union, these have all gone through revolutions to install a more democratic regime, with varying degrees of success.

How do you figure I was calling you names? I have yet to call you names up to this point, so were not "back" to that either.

Anyway, there have been successful revolutions and instances where governments have changed hands peacefully predating the above mentioned - go back farther than 1975 - or whatever the earliest date you posted was. On the other hand, the government is often the people's biggest enemy, so I guess it might also depends on your idea of success.

Have a nice day, Norton. <-------- Example of calling you names.

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by Said1:
How do you figure I was calling you names?

Anyway, there have been successful revolutions and instances where governments have changed hands peacefully predating the above mentioned - go back farther than 1975 - or whatever the earliest date you posted was. On the other hand, the government is oftenthe people's biggest enemy, so I guess it depends on your idea of success, isn't it?

Have a nice day, Norton. <-------- Example of calling you name.

You responded to a serious post of mine by joking about the semantics, while refraining from an answer; then you go on telling me I should educate myself on the topic at hand. I could say the same of you, yet chose not to do so.

Anyway, no hard feelings here, you didn't have to make excuses.

Succesful revolutions aplenty, succesful regime changes however are hardly existing. That was my point, hence the semantics earlier on.

Governments can indeed be the people's biggest enemy, and you should as a true patriot always put your country's wellbeing above your government's wellbeing. You are obliged to your country to raise an accusing finger when the government abuses it's power and takes on other tasks than what it is appointed for: i.e. protection and progress of the nation as a whole, instead of protection and progress of their corporate sponsors.

But we obviously see the current war on terror from a completely different perspective; I stated that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and you should go after Bin Laden and Al Zawahri instead.

By instigating regime change in Iraq I believe the US has instead chosen to fuel the flames of radical Islamists. Which is not really in your best interest as a nation, but has proven to work remarkably well for the corporate sponsors of your present government, i.e. the oil industry.

 

[Said1]

You responded to a serious post of mine by joking about the semantics, while refraining from an answer; then you go on telling me I should educate myself on the topic at hand. I could say the same of you, yet chose not to do so.

Anyway, no hard feelings here, you didn't have to make excuses.

Succesful revolutions aplenty, succesful regime changes however are hardly existing. That was my point, hence the semantics earlier on.

Governments can indeed be the people's biggest enemy, and you should as a true patriot always put your country's wellbeing above your government's wellbeing. You are obliged to your country to raise an accusing finger when the government abuses it's power and takes on other tasks than what it is appointed for: i.e. protection and progress of the nation as a whole, instead of protection and progress of their corporate sponsors.

But we obviously see the current war on terror from a completely different perspective; I stated that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and you should go after Bin Laden and Al Zawahri instead.

By instigating regime change in Iraq I believe the US has instead chosen to fuel the flames of radical Islamists. Which is not really in your best interest as a nation, but has proven to work remarkably well for the corporate sponsors of your present government, i.e. the oil industry.

Firstly, the basis of your response to me was semantics. That aside, you either purposely overlooked that which is obvious to anyone with the slightest bit of historical knowledge or you simply don't know what I'm talking about. Your response actually inspired in me, the use of inference, hence my suggestion of further reading. Now, at present, I'm opting to overlook the obvious, because your posts clearly reflect your intent and attitude - I'm fairly certain you knew I was not talking about the United States specifically. Anyway, no hard feelings, you didn't need to make excuses either.

Secondly, you really do not know what I think, nor do you know what country I am from (hint: Canadian flag in signature line). Personally, I think civil war within Iraq was inevitable due to the pre-existing influence of radical Islam in Iraq prior to the US led invasion. Had Saddam been over thrown by a "populace" motivated by anti-west Muslim extremists, don't you suppose the inevitable consequences would have resulted in further attempted invasions or overthrow of pro-west nations in the middle east? The root causes of radical Islam vary and are debatable, however one can not argue the far reaching interests that need to be protected in the Middle East - this includes just about everyone, as just about all are a part of the global economy.


On a side note (and obvious distraction ) I'm was glad to see your county's oil sector has been experiencing increases in oil production recently - good on ya! <-------sarcasm, no need to respond.

 

[Bonnie]

So what regions are you saying would be in dire need of more meddling: Iran? Who’s current regime of Islamic hardliners was installed as a reaction to the US backed dictatorial Shah? What makes you believe this time around a single nation, such as America, has the best interest of some foreign country at heart? Bush’s honesty, compared to Reagan’s, Clinton’s or whatever previous president’s or Western or Soviet regime changes?

Where have I ever stated I thought America should perpetuate a regime change in either Iran or anywhere else???? Right now the world should be concerned about Iran's nuclear capabilities, regime change may happen if the youth has the balls to act, not likely but maybe.

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by Said1:
Firstly, the basis of your response to me was semantics. That aside, you either purposely overlooked that which is obvious to anyone with the slightest bit of historical knowledge or you simply don't know what I'm talking about. Your response actually inspired in me, the use of inference, hence my suggestion of further reading. Now, at present, I'm opting to overlook the obvious, because your posts clearly reflect your intent and attitude - I'm fairly certain you knew I was not talking about the United States specifically. Anyway, no hard feelings, you didn't need to make excuses either.

Secondly, you really do not know what I think, nor do you know what country I am from (hint: Canadian flag in signature line). Personally, I think civil war within Iraq was inevitable due to the pre-existing influence of radical Islam in Iraq prior to the US led invasion. Had Saddam been over thrown by a "populace" motivated by anti-west Muslim extremists, don't you suppose the inevitable consequences would have resulted in further attempted invasions or overthrow of pro-west nations in the middle east? The root causes of radical Islam vary and are debatable, however one can not argue the far reaching interests that need to be protected in the Middle East - this includes just about everyone, as just about all are a part of the global economy.

On a side note (and obvious distraction ) I'm was glad to see your county's oil sector has been experiencing increases in oil production recently - good on ya! <-------sarcasm, no need to respond.

Excusez moi, but I believe it is you who argued there is no difference between regime change and revolution. Although they have the same effect, i.e. another government, their approaches differ greatly: and as I have stated, revolutions have proven to be more succesful than regime changes throughout history. Hence my question: what is so great about the regime change in Iraq, other than that a dictator that was cheered by the west for as long as he was doing our bidding, has been replaced by a regime that is again in the interest of the west instead of Iraq?

It seems to me Saddam had clamped down on pre-existing radical Islam pretty effectively, by basically executing them whenever there was a suspicion of their existence. Nothing much changed in that respect, other than that they now can reign more freely because all the Iraqi intel on their whereabouts has been effectively destroyed.

Your suspicions that a popular revolt would automatically lead to an anti-western extremist government are nothing but suspicions. However, I share the same suspicions as well, I just don't think that bombing their country will make them go away - but rather fuel these very suspicions.

That said, have you any opinion on what I’ve stated previously, other than your obvious distractions – [sarcasm]are you a liberal?[/sarcasm] – over the subject? That is: how does this “regime change” benefit the American or global community as compared to the benefits for the oil industry?

Remember I’ve said: the American president and his government shows a clear conflict of interest here: on the one hand satisfy the American public’s demand for a growing economy, access to education and healthcare; on the other hand his corporate investers that demand to see a profitable interest in their investment in this government.

Originally posted by Bonnie:
Where have I ever stated I thought America should perpetuate a regime change in either Iran or anywhere else???? Right now the world should be concerned about Iran's nuclear capabilities, regime change may happen if the youth has the balls to act, not likely but maybe.

I believe you’ve said you support the regime change your government is pushing upon Iraq, for noble reasons no doubt. But remember that all the “regime changes” in history were sold with noble causes in mind – resulting mostly in the not so noble oppression of the local populace. Now you should know I detest Saddam as much as you do.
But on Iraq’s situation after the ousting of Saddam, I said previously:
“I know full well that you refer to the current elections, that have surprisingly been called fraudulent, for in numerous provinces there were more votes than people. Maybe Iraq will be free this time around, but like I said, they have had free elections before under British Rule, which were basically not free at all, just fraudulent façade to give the people a sense of freedom. All the British really needed was for the population to stop complaining as they started shipping cheap oil out of Iraq.”

With that in mind, I asked those questions, that were phrased maybe a little harsh.
But what do you think the Iraqi people will do with the current constitution, the current occupation of their country, the future stance on western honesty? Are they going to buy the same false story once again?
As for Iran, I wouldn’t be too happy if they got their hands on nuclear weapons. We’ve seen enough nuclear proliferation lately as it is; with three more nations joining the club of nuclear missile capabilities: India, Pakestan and North Korea, the world is not exactly a much safer place.

However, given your governments current stance on the axis of evil, Iran is supposed to be next, and the wardrums are beating: Iran has been implied to be behind insurgent’s attacks in Iraq and has been implied to seek nuclear weapons, and to possess chemical and biological agents already. Which are about the same reasons that were used to invade Iraq. Now, Iraq had none of these, but was invaded nonetheless, for fear of an “attack with WMDs on western targets within 45 min after the order were given.”

Now, North Korea, number three on the list, already has them (at least that’s what they say). This has remarkably softened the American threat of an invasion of North Korea. Instead, North Korea is back at the negotiation table, be it somewhat nonsuccesful.

Given this fact, I think it would be wise for Iran to actually seek nuclear weapons, for that seems to be the only deterrent for American’s to cease their aggressive stance on their country. However, there still is no hard evidence that they have done so. Iran has been working on relations with other nations, to get out of the trap of isolation that Iraq was in.

Does that signal a motive to secretly build nukes, or a motive to get allies together to prevent an American assault on their country?

 

[Said1]

Excusez moi, but I believe it is you who argued there is no difference between regime change and revolution.
Although they have the same effect, i.e. another government, their approaches differ greatly: and as I have stated, revolutions have proven to be more succesful than regime changes throughout history. Hence my question: what is so great about the regime change in Iraq, other than that a dictator that was cheered by the west for as long as he was doing our bidding, has been replaced by a regime that is again in the interest of the west instead of Iraq?

No I didn’t. I said some, other than the nations you originally mentioned did not have catastrophic effects and were nessesary. You went on to give the definition of “revolution” which is fine, as long as you understand (and you seem too based on the American examples you provided) that revolutions are not always instigated from the inside, even though it is largely the “populace” perpetrating and supporting acts of war within their nation.

It seems to me Saddam had clamped down on pre-existing radical Islam pretty effectively, by basically executing them whenever there was a suspicion of their existence. Nothing much changed in that respect, other than that they now can reign more freely because all the Iraqi intel on their whereabouts has been effectively destroyed.

True, many were executed and expelled, but clearly not all supposed threats were eliminated. This is just an assumption on my part, admittedly, but I think it's an acurate one. People can organize and influence from the outside.

Your suspicions that a popular revolt would automatically lead to an anti-western extremist government are nothing but suspicions. However, I share the same suspicions as well, I just don't think that bombing their country will make them go away - but rather fuel these very suspicions.

Considering one of the main goals existing within most extremists groups is to remove anything western from the middle east, I think it's only obvious that western intervention would be required eventually. You would prefer that they fight against extremists themselves, sure, good idea but how? If other Mid East governments had done a better job in exstinguishing the fires of extremism, it would not be nessesary to fight anyone.

That said, have you any opinion on what I’ve stated previously, other than your obvious distractions – [sarcasm]are you a liberal?[/sarcasm] – over the subject? That is: how does this “regime change” benefit the American or global community as compared to the benefits for the oil industry?

Remember I’ve said: the American president and his government shows a clear conflict of interest here: on the one hand satisfy the American public’s demand for a growing economy, access to education and healthcare; on the other hand his corporate investers that demand to see a profitable interest in their investment in this government.

Are you serious? You don’t have any idea what the flow of oil out of the middle east represents within the global economy? Not one iota? This is not meant to insult you, just trying to get you to think of the amount of oil exported from the middle east (in dollar amounts) and how much of that profit is taken and reinvested into other areas within the global economy and what would happen that suddenly stopped.

I believe you’ve said you support the regime change your government is pushing upon Iraq, for noble reasons no doubt. But remember that all the “regime changes” in history were sold with noble causes in mind – resulting mostly in the not so noble oppression of the local populace. Now you should know I detest Saddam as much as you do.
But on Iraq’s situation after the ousting of Saddam, I said previously:
“I know full well that you refer to the current elections, that have surprisingly been called fraudulent, for in numerous provinces there were more votes than people. Maybe Iraq will be free this time around, but like I said, they have had free elections before under British Rule, which were basically not free at all, just fraudulent façade to give the people a sense of freedom. All the British really needed was for the population to stop complaining as they started shipping cheap oil out of Iraq.”

With that in mind, I asked those questions, that were phrased maybe a little harsh.
But what do you think the Iraqi people will do with the current constitution, the current occupation of their country, the future stance on western honesty? Are they going to buy the same false story once again?
As for Iran, I wouldn’t be too happy if they got their hands on nuclear weapons. We’ve seen enough nuclear proliferation lately as it is; with three more nations joining the club of nuclear missile capabilities: India, Pakestan and North Korea, the world is not exactly a much safer place.

However, given your governments current stance on the axis of evil, Iran is supposed to be next, and the wardrums are beating: Iran has been implied to be behind insurgent’s attacks in Iraq and has been implied to seek nuclear weapons, and to possess chemical and biological agents already. Which are about the same reasons that were used to invade Iraq. Now, Iraq had none of these, but was invaded nonetheless, for fear of an “attack with WMDs on western targets within 45 min after the order were given.”

Now, North Korea, number three on the list, already has them (at least that’s what they say). This has remarkably softened the American threat of an invasion of North Korea. Instead, North Korea is back at the negotiation table, be it somewhat nonsuccesful.

Given this fact, I think it would be wise for Iran to actually seek nuclear weapons, for that seems to be the only deterrent for American’s to cease their aggressive stance on their country. However, there still is no hard evidence that they have done so. Iran has been working on relations with other nations, to get out of the trap of isolation that Iraq was in.

Does that signal a motive to secretly build nukes, or a motive to get allies together to prevent an American assault on their country?

I have not made comments pertaining to the above, you have me mistaken for someone else. And it's not my government, I'm Canadian.

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by Said1:
No I didn’t. I said some, other than the nations you originally mentioned did not have catastrophic effects and were nessesary. You went on to give the definition of “revolution” which is fine, as long as you understand (and you seem too based on the American examples you provided) that revolutions are not always instigated from the inside, even though it is largely the “populace” perpetrating and supporting acts of war within their nation.

Fair enough, but then I did mention a few "successful" regime changes.
I am perfectly aware of the fact that both regime change and revolutions lead to, basically, regime change. I meant to point out the difference between them as it is used in the current War on Terror, in which regime change means: intervention.

Thus the distinction between revolution; a sometimes bloodless, sometimes bloody regime change instigated by the local populace, and regime change; an always bloody intervention by a foreign force imposing colonial rule on the nation in question, hardly ever supported by the local populace.

Originally posted by Said1:
True, many were executed and expelled, but clearly not all supposed threats were eliminated. This is just an assumption on my part, admittedly, but I think it's an acurate one. People can organize and influence from the outside.

I think you can be fairly sure that Saddam was doing very well in eliminating any threats from within his own country to his dictatorial rule; in fact, he is one of the most succesful dictators in recent history.

As to organization from the outside, yes, you are correct, there are numerous examples of previously expelled citizens that organized outside their country's borders and eventually overthrew the regime. These are again, revolutions, since they are led by inhabitants of the country, and recieve a large popular base - if not, they won't make it to the capital.

This however contrasts sharply with regime change instigated by foreign invaders.

Originally posted by Said1:
Considering one of the main goals existing within most extremists groups is to remove anything western from the middle east, I think it's only obvious that western intervention would be required eventually. You would prefer that they fight against extremists themselves, sure, good idea but how? If other Mid East governments had done a better job in exstinguishing the fires of extremism, it would not be nessesary to fight anyone.

If you refer to extremists in general, you are incorrect.
If you refer to Muslim extremists, you are again, incorrect.
Extremists have been known to assault western targets, but that has not been their main objective during history. They have always fought against their local regimes, be it western or eastern, it doesn't matter. Extremists have always used force to get their opinion recognized amongst the general public, for this is the only way they can reach them.

The general public is mainly somewhere on the middle ground with their opinions, and as the name implies they are far larger in number than these extremists. These extremists are pushed to the outer fringes of society, thus feeling like they are outcast, thus festering their hatred for society, thus eventually blowing stuff up around them to get themselves heard.
The real irony here is that they do it to themselves mostly.
Although of course sometimes violence also rise in opposition to a foreign occupation, as is the case in present day Iraq - these people are then called freedom fighters. But since there are also a lot of people in Iraq that are actually extremists, and violence is regular in a warzone, the distinction between these two groups is very hard to make; if at all.

Given these facts, it does sound convincing that the American military is bringing democracy to the region for a greater good - the extremists will not feel well in a democracy. But given the fact that Saddam was doing the best job in the region in extinguishing extremists in his own country, through brutal military rule, it still strikes me as an odd target.
On top of that, we now have violence in the form of freedom fighters that are added to the mix, making it quite a complex warzone.

Especially since these Al Qaeda people have been executed more in Saddam's Iraq than anywhere else, what was the friggin' point to go there, instead of to Afghanistan, or Syria for that matter. (I know you're a Canadian, I'm just probing for your opinion on the matter of Iraq).

Originally posted by Said1:
Are you serious? You don’t have any idea what the flow of oil out of the middle east represents within the global economy? Not one iota? This is not meant to insult you, just trying to get you to think of the amount of oil exported from the middle east (in dollar amounts) and how much of that profit is taken and reinvested into other areas within the global economy and what would happen that suddenly stopped.

I'm dead serious.
Did you know that Saddam, who was the United States' ally in the Iraq/Iran war (although Reagan funded both sides) saw his country's infrastructure devastated during that war?
Did you know, that to rebuild the country, Saddam was counting on the sale of oil to get the money to do this?
Did you know that at that exact time, Kuwait decided to flood the world's market with oil, thus greatly decreasing the price of oil?
Did you know that Saddam was very angry about this, and asked the US if he could attack Kuwait over it?
Did you know, the US agreed and gave him the green light to do so?
You do know the rest is history.
Nowadays, the prices of oil are going through the roof.
Who benefits from that? The average American? Don't think so. Not the average citizen of other countries either.
The oil industry? The ones that sponsored this American administration, which trumpeted the need for a war with Iraq?
The oil industry, that builds refineries, not highways and schools?
May there be a conflict of interest here?
It's a hard choice I'll wager, going from very rich to insanely rich, or to invest in highways and schools for sandniggers....mmmm.
The historical ethical/financial conflict once again.. what will it be?

Originally posted by Said1:
I have not made comments pertaining to the above, you have me mistaken for someone else. And it's not my government, I'm Canadian.

Actually, it was a reply to Bonnie.
But I put it in the same post, so that may have been the reason for your confusion. I'll try to be more clear next time around.

 

[Said1]

Fair enough, but then I did mention a few "successful" regime changes.
I am perfectly aware of the fact that both regime change and revolutions lead to, basically, regime change. I meant to point out the difference between them as it is used in the current War on Terror, in which regime change means: intervention.

Thus the distinction between revolution; a sometimes bloodless, sometimes bloody regime change instigated by the local populace, and regime change; an always bloody intervention by a foreign force imposing colonial rule on the nation in question, hardly ever supported by the local populace.

Ok, whatever. A discussion detailing the circumstances and events surrounding the major revolutions over the past 300 years would probably be much more interesting.

I think you can be fairly sure that Saddam was doing very well in eliminating any threats from within his own country to his dictatorial rule; in fact, he is one of the most succesful dictators in recent history.

Sure.

This however contrasts sharply with regime change instigated by foreign invaders.

In Iraq?

If you refer to extremists in general, you are incorrect.
If you refer to Muslim extremists, you are again, incorrect.
Extremists have been known to assault western targets, but that has not been their main objective during history. They have always fought against their local regimes, be it western or eastern, it doesn't matter. Extremists have always used force to get their opinion recognized amongst the general public, for this is the only way they can reach them.

I said one of the main goals existing within Muslim fundamentalist and/or extremist ideology is the removal of the west and all it's influences from the middle east. And no, I'm not incorrect.

Given these facts, it does sound convincing that the American military is bringing democracy to the region for a greater good - the extremists will not feel well in a democracy. But given the fact that Saddam was doing the best job in the region in extinguishing extremists in his own country, through brutal military rule, it still strikes me as an odd target.
On top of that, we now have violence in the form of freedom fighters that are added to the mix, making it quite a complex warzone.
Especially since these Al Qaeda people have been executed more in Saddam's Iraq than anywhere else, what was the friggin' point to go there, instead of to Afghanistan, or Syria for that matter. (I know you're a Canadian, I'm just probing for your opinion on the matter of Iraq).

More people have been executed under Saddam's regime, period. Keeping that in mind, why would he strike you as an odd target?
Plus, I've also stated my opinion on this already. I think the conditions for civil war within Iraq existed before the arrival of coalition forces. Had this happened, I think extremists would have easily found allies all over the middle east, toppling or atleast attempting to topple other governments and/or emirates etc. Although, as you claim, Saddam did do his best to keep himself in power I don't think he was capable of dispelling all those who wish to dispose of him, and the west from Iraq. The almost immediate and welcomed return of expelled religous leaders, indicates (to me) that there was organization outside of Iraq that was supported from within Iraq.

I'm dead serious.
Did you know that Saddam, who was the United States' ally in the Iraq/Iran war (although Reagan funded both sides) saw his country's infrastructure devastated during that war?
Did you know, that to rebuild the country, Saddam was counting on the sale of oil to get the money to do this?
Did you know that at that exact time, Kuwait decided to flood the world's market with oil, thus greatly decreasing the price of oil?
Did you know that Saddam was very angry about this, and asked the US if he could attack Kuwait over it?
Did you know, the US agreed and gave him the green light to do so?
You do know the rest is history.
Nowadays, the prices of oil are going through the roof.
Who benefits from that? The average American? Don't think so. Not the average citizen of other countries either.
The oil industry? The ones that sponsored this American administration, which trumpeted the need for a war with Iraq?
The oil industry, that builds refineries, not highways and schools?
May there be a conflict of interest here?
It's a hard choice I'll wager, going from very rich to insanely rich, or to invest in highways and schools for sandniggers....mmmm.
The historical ethical/financial conflict once again.. what will it be?

Yes. Yes. Yes. Wrong, Iraq accused Kuwait of directional drilling (extraction) in Iraqi oil feilds - steeling. Why was Kuwait steeling Iraqi oill? Because Saddam felt he didn't need to re-pay debts owed from the war with Iran since the benefits went beyond the boarders of Iraq wanted all debts cancelled....remember? Then there was the supposed Kuwaiti rebellion.
To the best of my recollection, I believe te US stayed neutral on this issue, civil matter. Saddam was given not given the "go ahead" nor was he condemned. Intervention of the west was the result of fears that Saddam would invade Saudi Arabia after the annexation Kuwait taking previously desputed land. Iraq has never acknowledged Kuwait's independence, they have had desputes over land and oil before.

Next.....with a few exceptions, the oil industry is not part of most pubic infrastructures, thus not requiring those involved to invest in building roads, hospitals etc for anyone. Unless your point is pertaining to the rebuilding of Iraq......I'm not sure, it's hard to tell what your point is here exactly. Do you mean tax them more, so the government can build roads and schools?

I'm not following with the conflict of interest, and I can't seem to remember any American oil companies calling for war in Iraq either.....

Anyway, back to the economy. There is no disputing the fact that the average citizen does not benefit from high oil prices, I don't recall arguing that or even hinting at it, but Americans are not the only ones benefitting from high oil prices, you do know that right?

In my opinion, it would seem (by your posts) that you fail to see is the bigger picture, and that is how intertwinded the oil industry is with the global economy. Basically (to narrow it down a bit) you seem to be arguing that the war in Iraq is soley based on some debt George Bush has to his cororate sponsors within the oil industry, which conflicts with what? I say the war in Iraq has more to do with protection of the flow of oil, which in turn effects the global economy. You keep harping on Bush's corporate oil sponsors...why? What about Saudi venture capital the economy within my country is very dependant on? How many other industries would come to a halted if oil production cease to exist?? High prices benefit certain people, but the continued flow of oil is crucial in keeping the production of goods and services afloat, within many different industries. It's not all about George Bush and the American oil industry.

Actually, it was a reply to Bonnie.
But I put it in the same post, so that may have been the reason for your confusion. I'll try to be more clear next time around.

No, you edited after I responded. Anyway, no big deal.

 

[Said1]

Bump


Harm, Psycho, Celin???

 

[manu1959]

Bump


Harm, Psycho, Celin???

the right wins again....either that or they are at the bar...thinking they are gonna score only to go home an rub one out after last call

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by Said1:
Harm, Psycho, Celin???

Sorry, busy with lots of stuff.
Only wanted to post something constructive, so it took a while.
But here it is. . . happy reading.

Originally posted by Said1:
Ok, whatever. A discussion detailing the circumstances and events surrounding the major revolutions over the past 300 years would probably be much more interesting.

Ok, that would be interesting indeed.
However, we should create a thread in the history section for that I think.

Originally posted by Said1:
Sure.

Ok, then do you also agree that since he was a dictator, that means sharing power was not an option? Not with the Osama or Al Qaeda or anyone else.

Originally posted by Said1:
In Iraq?

I’ve drawn parallels previously between the British attempt to install a regime in Iraq after the first world war, and the current American attempt to do exactly the same. Both feature striking similarities, including the promise for democratic elections, that proved to be fraudulent, the enormous lobbying by the corporate arm of society that was interested in the oil, and even the levelling of Fallujah in response to dissent amongst the Iraqi populace. It’s all just a little bit of history repeating.

Originally posted by Said1:
I said one of the main goals existing within Muslim fundamentalist and/or extremist ideology is the removal of the west and all it's influences from the middle east. And no, I'm not incorrect.

The above statement I agree with: one of the main goals of Osama and Al Zawahri’s little group is just that, the removal of Western lobbyists that control through corporate interests the regimes of those countries. I am aware it works to our benefit for the short term, but I can also understand their resentment for it.
However, that is just one side of the story.
There are many more terrorist groups that are solely interested in the overthrow of their local corrupt governments, and have nothing to do with international terrorism. But for the sake of simplicity, if these happen to be Muslim groups, they fall under the umbrella of international Muslim terrorism, aka Al Qaeda.

This is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Whatever group that is not affiliated with Al Qaeda, but is being bombed anyways in the war on terror, will eventually become a cell of Al Qaeda – it thus becomes a neverending war, which fits the corporate arms industry just fine: you are aware of the coming showdown on Syria and possibly Iran? At present, these countries have not attacked western countries, but as they are under everincreasing pressure to bow down to western military might in advance – pre-emptively surrendering so to speak – they will retaliate in the long run. And personally, I cannot blame them if this is to be the case.

Originally posted by Said1:
More people have been executed under Saddam's regime, period. Keeping that in mind, why would he strike you as an odd target?
Plus, I've also stated my opinion on this already. I think the conditions for civil war within Iraq existed before the arrival of coalition forces. Had this happened, I think extremists would have easily found allies all over the middle east, toppling or atleast attempting to topple other governments and/or emirates etc. Although, as you claim, Saddam did do his best to keep himself in power I don't think he was capable of dispelling all those who wish to dispose of him, and the west from Iraq. The almost immediate and welcomed return of expelled religous leaders, indicates (to me) that there was organization outside of Iraq that was supported from within Iraq.

Yes, Saddam is and was an evil megalomaniac dictator. I’ve never stated otherwise, although my descriptions vary: from evil to sad and whatnot.

Saddam was actually very efficient in exterminating anyone who opposed him. Especially the beginning of his rule was very brutal; thus establishing the fear that dictators need to maintain in a position of power. By the end of his rule, massive killings of civilians were far less occurances than in the beginning.
People had accepted he could not be ousted, and thus they accepted his rule - which made him less inclined to kill people at random.

All the fear of toppling regimes throughout the region is just ludicrous.
Like I've said, Al Zawahri and his group of insane f*ckheads have been trying this for over a decade. Blow people up, kill government officials, and "PRESTO" we have a new extreme Islamic regime for the taking! Didn't happen.
Why not? Because most people are not relegious extremists, but religious moderates. They will thus more easily come to the position of power.

Why not in Iran? There is an extreme right wing Islamofascist now in power.
May it have something to do with the extreme stance of the West on the Iranian issue? Very likely.

I agree that many people died under Saddam's regime. But so did many people in so many other countries. I do not believe for one second that the American government invaded Iraq with the goal of helping the Iraqi people. Do you remember the beginning of the war?
Shock and awe; with over 10,000 warheads being launched on Baghdad in the first weekend alone? Do you remember the ignorant statements by the American government that they would be greeted as liberators, not occupiers? Can you make the connect to the British attempt in the 1920s? The Iraqi people have demonstrated that they do remember.
To most European countries, and most civilians of the countries that did get involved in the war on terror, this was obvious from the start. But they were soon labeled as pussies.
Which signalled the end of an adult debate.

The “resistance” or the “terrorists” in Iraq will not cease their attempts to kill American and British forces that are over there. Is this not obvious? Is it thus not totally inappropriate to leave these soldiers there to die, in a hostile environment that wishes them to leave? I believe it very much is inappropriate, or just plain wrong.

If the Iraqi’s want them to leave, why not show them our respect by acknowledging their wishes, and wish them good luck with their new country? Why treat them as if they are backwards, or children, that cannot govern themselves, but need a more advanced or adult foreign force to do so? What are you telling them with that?

Originally posted by Said1:
Yes. Yes. Yes. Wrong, Iraq accused Kuwait of directional drilling (extraction) in Iraqi oil feilds - steeling. Why was Kuwait steeling Iraqi oill? Because Saddam felt he didn't need to re-pay debts owed from the war with Iran since the benefits went beyond the boarders of Iraq wanted all debts cancelled....remember? Then there was the supposed Kuwaiti rebellion.
To the best of my recollection, I believe te US stayed neutral on this issue, civil matter….

Agreed, agreed, agreed.
Not exactly. Iraq did accuse Kuwait of directional drilling, but that was only after the fact that Kuwait decided to flood the world’s market with cheap oil – destroying Saddam’s goal of rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure with money from oil revenues. The accusations about slant drilling only served as a pretext for invasion.

Agreed, formally, America took a neutral stance in the matter of the conflict.
However, since Iraq’s army was far larger than Kuwait’s, this has been interpreted as a “go ahead, we don’t care” signal. There is indeed much controversy over this.

Originally posted by Said1:
I'm not following with the conflict of interest, and I can't seem to remember any American oil companies calling for war in Iraq either.....

Of course the oil companies didn’t call directly for war. That would be a bit foolish now wouldn’t it? My point was: there is a status quo which is called “conflict of interests”.
It is a common theme in governments.

They should represent the people on the one hand. But in the American structure of government, which calls for large fundings to be able to run for presidency, this results in the other hand: the corporate interests that they would like to see defended.
The president has to keep both sides happy, thus whenever there may be a conflict between the populace and the corporate sponsors, the president has to make a decision that will satisfy both parties.

The possible “conflict of interest” arises from the fact that the corporations have paid the president roughly 80 million dollars in sponsoring money – and obviously they expect a profitable return from their investment. Thus the president may in certain cases feel obliged to have the balance of the decision swing in favour of his sponsors, at the cost of the general populace. The general populace did not so much invest financially in the president, they did so with their trust. But trust doesn’t raise a profitable interest.
Thus the potential for a “swing” of the balance is very real.

Originally posted by Said1:
Anyway, back to the economy. There is no disputing the fact that the average citizen does not benefit from high oil prices, I don't recall arguing that or even hinting at it, but Americans are not the only ones benefitting from high oil prices, you do know that right?

What makes you think my government or the British did indeed follow suit?
Because we are the owners of Royal Shell oil – the largest, or one of the largest oil companies in the world. Why do you think 70 – 80% of our populace opposed the invasion, but my government decided to go along anyways? They defied the opinion of the general populace, in favour of the possible oil revenues, that would be beneficial to our economy – if everything proved to be the cakewalk they were expecting.
This is exactly the same “conflict of interest”.
Who benefits? The corporations, or the general populace?
Who sponsored the current American government? Both corporations and general populace. But in a conflict of interest, there can be only one winner. Tough luck.

Originally posted by Said1:
No, you edited after I responded. Anyway, no big deal.

Fair enough, that could very well be, since I sometimes correct typing errors later on. I may actually have forgotten to put the “originally posted by Bonnie” text up there, hence the confusion.
Anyways, looking forward to your response.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_war
Iraq death toll soars post war:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3962969.stm

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Interesting discussion in the details.

I would like to add to it, but its a bit lengthy and would have to do so later, except a few things.

You "Understand" his resentment because of corporate control over local regimes??? Does this mean you give even the remotest allowence for understanding why he is a terrorist (Zawahri)?

If so, you totally lose it.

Regarding the parrallels with the Brits attempting to install a regime, one can find parallels in almost any two situations. But it is such a TOTALLY different world today that any comparision indicating the results will be the same are useless. We didnt have video tape of beheadings, etc, etc, We hadnt experienced Hitler, no Isreal at the time, no global community and economics, not as much dependency on oil

The ONLY way to know if the middle east is ready for a democratic govt is to try it. Will it work? We dont know for sure, we didnt know if the revolution of 1776 would work. But its worth the effort. win lose or draw.

 

[Said1]

Ok, then do you also agree that since he was a dictator, that means sharing power was not an option? Not with the Osama or Al Qaeda or anyone else.

Of course, although I didn't say anything about sharing power. My point was about external threats and collaboration.

I’ve drawn parallels previously between the British attempt to install a regime in Iraq after the first world war, and the current American attempt to do exactly the same. Both feature striking similarities, including the promise for democratic elections, that proved to be fraudulent, the enormous lobbying by the corporate arm of society that was interested in the oil, and even the levelling of Fallujah in response to dissent amongst the Iraqi populace. It’s all just a little bit of history repeating.

With the exception of colaborative dissenters, you haven't drawn any "real" parallels. You "think" the recent elections are fake and the entire situaiton is a farce, You know this how?

The above statement I agree with: one of the main goals of Osama and Al Zawahri’s little group is just that, the removal of Western lobbyists that control through corporate interests the regimes of those countries. I am aware it works to our benefit for the short term, but I can also understand their resentment for it.
However, that is just one side of the story.
There are many more terrorist groups that are solely interested in the overthrow of their local corrupt governments, and have nothing to do with international terrorism. But for the sake of simplicity, if these happen to be Muslim groups, they fall under the umbrella of international Muslim terrorism, aka Al Qaeda.

This is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Whatever group that is not affiliated with Al Qaeda, but is being bombed anyways in the war on terror, will eventually become a cell of Al Qaeda – it thus becomes a neverending war, which fits the corporate arms industry just fine: you are aware of the coming showdown on Syria and possibly Iran? At present, these countries have not attacked western countries, but as they are under everincreasing pressure to bow down to western military might in advance – pre-emptively surrendering so to speak – they will retaliate in the long run. And personally, I cannot blame them if this is to be the case.

Again, my point was about colaberation, but the entire quote really makes no sense. What works to our benefit in the short term? What are “other” groups doing in Iraq other than fighting coalition forces? Unless they are just there doing their own thing, proving the assertion that they were there all along, even though Saddam denied it.
As for as Syria, even France is demanding their cooperation.

Saddam was actually very efficient in exterminating anyone who opposed him. Especially the beginning of his rule was very brutal; thus establishing the fear that dictators need to maintain in a position of power. By the end of his rule, massive killings of civilians were far less occurances than in the beginning.
People had accepted he could not be ousted, and thus they accepted his rule - which made him less inclined to kill people at random.

All the fear of toppling regimes throughout the region is just ludicrous.
Like I've said, Al Zawahri and his group of insane f*ckheads have been trying this for over a decade. Blow people up, kill government officials, and "PRESTO" we have a new extreme Islamic regime for the taking! Didn't happen.
Why not? Because most people are not relegious extremists, but religious moderates. They will thus more easily come to the position of power.

Why not in Iran? There is an extreme right wing Islamofascist now in power.
May it have something to do with the extreme stance of the West on the Iranian issue? Very likely.

Oh, so you disgree with that supositon now? Good grief, you are tiresome.
Again, my point was that they would be able to find allies within the area, like uh, Iran.

I agree that many people died under Saddam's regime. But so did many people in so many other countries. I do not believe for one second that the American government invaded Iraq with the goal of helping the Iraqi people. Do you remember the beginning of the war?
Shock and awe; with over 10,000 warheads being launched on Baghdad in the first weekend alone? Do you remember the ignorant statements by the American government that they would be greeted as liberators, not occupiers? Can you make the connect to the British attempt in the 1920s? The Iraqi people have demonstrated that they do remember.
To most European countries, and most civilians of the countries that did get involved in the war on terror, this was obvious from the start. But they were soon labeled as pussies.
Which signalled the end of an adult debate.

I agree, bombs kill people. Saddam should have stepped down. The conditions were ripe for civil unrest as was the case in 1920. However, the removal of Saddam via extremists who have powerful support from other oppressive regimes would NOT benefit Iraqis people as democracy, it would only ensure their continued oppression.

Also, some of those who "didn't" get involved (you meant "didn't" right?), had reason to see Saddam stay in power, did they not? Canada can be included in this list of nations, membets of the former Priime Minister's family was benefitting from contracts directly related to oil for food. Pretty cowardly if you ask moi.

The “resistance” or the “terrorists” in Iraq will not cease their attempts to kill American and British forces that are over there. Is this not obvious? Is it thus not totally inappropriate to leave these soldiers there to die, in a hostile environment that wishes them to leave? I believe it very much is inappropriate, or just plain wrong.

If the Iraqi’s want them to leave, why not show them our respect by acknowledging their wishes, and wish them good luck with their new country? Why treat them as if they are backwards, or children, that cannot govern themselves, but need a more advanced or adult foreign force to do so? What are you telling them with that?

Wow. You’re suggesting they leave now and everything will be fine?

Agreed, agreed, agreed.
Not exactly. Iraq did accuse Kuwait of directional drilling, but that was only after the fact that Kuwait decided to flood the world’s market with cheap oil – destroying Saddam’s goal of rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure with money from oil revenues. The accusations about slant drilling only served as a pretext for invasion.

Eeegads. What was the real reason, the cause of all the actions/reactions?

Of course the oil companies didn’t call directly for war. That would be a bit foolish now wouldn’t it? My point was: there is a status quo which is called “conflict of interests”.
It is a common theme in governments.

What did you mean by "trumpet", secretly whisper?

They should represent the people on the one hand. But in the American structure of government, which calls for large fundings to be able to run for presidency, this results in the other hand: the corporate interests that they would like to see defended.
The president has to keep both sides happy, thus whenever there may be a conflict between the populace and the corporate sponsors, the president has to make a decision that will satisfy both parties.

The possible “conflict of interest” arises from the fact that the corporations have paid the president roughly 80 million dollars in sponsoring money – and obviously they expect a profitable return from their investment. Thus the president may in certain cases feel obliged to have the balance of the decision swing in favour of his sponsors, at the cost of the general populace. The general populace did not so much invest financially in the president, they did so with their trust. But trust doesn’t raise a profitable interest.
Thus the potential for a “swing” of the balance is very real.


What makes you think my government or the British did indeed follow suit?
Because we are the owners of Royal Shell oil – the largest, or one of the largest oil companies in the world. Why do you think 70 – 80% of our populace opposed the invasion, but my government decided to go along anyways? They defied the opinion of the general populace, in favour of the possible oil revenues, that would be beneficial to our economy – if everything proved to be the cakewalk they were expecting.
This is exactly the same “conflict of interest”.
Who benefits? The corporations, or the general populace?
Who sponsored the current American government? Both corporations and general populace. But in a conflict of interest, there can be only one winner. Tough luck.

I said others followed, or was that not clear?

All in all, as much as you hate it or fail to see the need for it, interests of corporations need to be protected, at times. Their interests are our interests, as they contribute to the “status” quo of "our" countries – the very status quo you were bragging about in another thread.

Anyway, your basically arguing Guns or Butter. You can't have both, but without the protection of your interests, you can't have butter either.

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by Said1:
Of course, although I didn't say anything about sharing power. My point was about external threats and collaboration.

You refer to the external threats posed by the collaborating British/US axis, that practiced continual bombings from 1991 to 2003?

Originally posted by Said1:
With the exception of colaborative dissenters, you haven't drawn any "real" parallels. You "think" the recent elections are fake and the entire situaiton is a farce, You know this how?

The parallels are very real indeed; sure enough, the British were there in the 1920s for their Empire ambitions, that could use a steady supply of oil.
The British are now riding together with the Dutch and a few other "trader's nations" on the possible financial wave that goes with the Empire building ambitions of the Americans.

For Iraq, it's a different face, but exactly the same event.

Yeah, I "think" the current elections in Iraq are as fraudulent as those written by the British for the Iraqi's in the 1920s. Has there ever in the history of the world been an invading unilateral/bilateral force that installed a regime and wrote a constitution for the benefit of the locals? No, not ever.

The installed regime, and the colonial power's constitution are there precisely to protect the colonial power, and no-one else. The only protection the indiginous people receive under such a farce is the need for cheap labour raised by the occupying nation...they are protected from dying to soon.

Truly, as much as I believe in the cinserity of the American soldiers on the ground, I reserve the same amount of disbelief for the humanitarian goals behind this invasion of Iraq.

Sure, some neo-cons want to build a world filled with democracy, and they have invented the myth that America's destiny in the world is to be the only force of pure good, to combat all the evil. This is utter nonsense. There is no purely good America, nor is there a purely evil Iraq, or Iran, or anything else. All nations do good and bad things: it's called history.

Originally posted by Said1:
Again, my point was about colaberation, but the entire quote really makes no sense. What works to our benefit in the short term? What are “other” groups doing in Iraq other than fighting coalition forces? Unless they are just there doing their own thing, proving the assertion that they were there all along, even though Saddam denied it.

The short term benefit for the west refers to the corporate controlled governments in the region: think Saudi Arabia, Kuwait. These will eventually blow up in our (or America's) faces.
The other groups are not necessarily in Iraq: I never said they were.
I understand it can be hard to understand, because I move back and forth from the perspective of the world to the perspective of the nation or the individual. I'll try to be as clear as possible.

My point was there are many terrorist organisations in the world. You recall the ETA, the IRA, to name a few European ones? They started using violence after they had witnessed government controlled violence against their defiant stance. Violence invites violence, thus the IRA and ETA started their history of blowing civilians to pieces, to make their statement carry more weight.
Thus, by invading Iraq, and killing, what, 40,000 civilians now, tens of thousands of "insurgents".....the killing rate under the civilian populace is higher now than under Saddam's brutal rule.

Originally posted by Said1:
As for as Syria, even France is demanding their cooperation.

AS for Syria, another country that has no meaning whatsoever in international events, other than to teach more Muslims a lesson in colonial rule. Which will spark the rise of even more terrorists, that wish to destroy Americans.
And thus become "Al Qaeda" - - - - you see where I'm going with the self-fulfilling prophecy? Endless war is endless profit.
Don't tell anyone though.

Originally posted by Said1:
Again, my point was that they would be able to find allies within the area, like uh, Iran.

Ok, one more time.
Civil war in Iraq was not happening at all, because Saddam was a brutal DICTATOR, one of the most efficient of modern times, and thus no dissent was allowed. He was playing the different factions like a violin.
Civil war is now on the brink of erupting, because the power vacuum left by ousting Saddam, is not going to be filled with CIA backed frauds that pretend to be politicians. Civil war would be an excellent excuse for America to get out of this mess, so I predict it's going to be any time now. Give it a year.

What makes you think extremists will then become the victors of such a civil war? Because they are more extreme? What?
The largest forces will be projected by the moderates, so they will logically be victorious. Only the constant meddling in Iraq's affairs, will give the extremists a chance of getting the popular vote behind them. The unifying cause: a common hatred of America.

Originally posted by Said1:
I agree, bombs kill people. Saddam should have stepped down. The conditions were ripe for civil unrest as was the case in 1920. However, the removal of Saddam via extremists who have powerful support from other oppressive regimes would NOT benefit Iraqis people as democracy, it would only ensure their continued oppression.

Hehe, yeah, and the glorious removal by the valourous shining knights of America ensured the Iraqi's that democracy is on the rise.

Originally posted by Said1:
Also, some of those who "didn't" get involved (you meant "didn't" right?), had reason to see Saddam stay in power, did they not? Canada can be included in this list of nations, membets of the former Priime Minister's family was benefitting from contracts directly related to oil for food. Pretty cowardly if you ask moi.

I meant did: the Netherlands, Denmark, Britain to name a few.
The popular vote was 85% against invasion of Iraq, but since we are democracies, the governments supported it. The Netherlands and Britain only for financial reasons.
Everybody was benefitting from the oil for food program.
Yes, that was cowardly I agree.
Invading Iraq on a pack of lies is not cowardly, no, but not the opposite of cowardly (i.e. heroically) either. It's just evil.

And who's benefitting from the invasion? Not the common Iraqi, not the common civilian in the world either. Oil companies, defence/arms companies, they make millions off the war. What about the "conflict of interest" again?

George W. Bush, 1978-84: senior executive, Arbusto Energy/Bush Exploration, an oil company; 1986-90: senior executive of the Harken oil company. Dick Cheney, 1995-2000: chief executive of the Halliburton oil company. Condoleezza Rice, 1991-2000: senior executive with the Chevron oil company, which named an oil tanker after her. And so on.

"Why of course the people don't want war....But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along. Whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." - Hermann Goering, Hitler's designated successor.

 

[Said1]

You refer to the external threats posed by the collaborating British/US axis, that practiced continual bombings from 1991 to 2003?

No. You also neglected to mention France was a part of that "axis", but quite for some reason. They also withdrew from various other locations, I think that means something, not sure what though.

The parallels are very real indeed; sure enough, the British were there in the 1920s for their Empire ambitions, that could use a steady supply of oil.
The British are now riding together with the Dutch and a few other "trader's nations" on the possible financial wave that goes with the Empire building ambitions of the Americans.

For Iraq, it's a different face, but exactly the same event.

Yeah, I "think" the current elections in Iraq are as fraudulent as those written by the British for the Iraqi's in the 1920s. Has there ever in the history of the world been an invading unilateral/bilateral force that installed a regime and wrote a constitution for the benefit of the locals? No, not ever.

The installed regime, and the colonial power's constitution are there precisely to protect the colonial power, and no-one else. The only protection the indiginous people receive under such a farce is the need for cheap labour raised by the occupying nation...they are protected from dying to soon.

Truly, as much as I believe in the cinserity of the American soldiers on the ground, I reserve the same amount of disbelief for the humanitarian goals behind this invasion of Iraq.

Sure, some neo-cons want to build a world filled with democracy, and they have invented the myth that America's destiny in the world is to be the only force of pure good, to combat all the evil. This is utter nonsense. There is no purely good America, nor is there a purely evil Iraq, or Iran, or anything else. All nations do good and bad things: it's called history.

You're free to believe and "think" whatever you want. I think you sincerly have the Iraqis best interests at heart too, preferring Saddam and the UN to control Iraq until the "populace" collectively agrees to rebel and install their own government, free of western intervention and extremism. What sounds more like a myth, the Iraqis ability to do that on there own, free of influence/help from the outside, or your idea of myth? But remember, I've never said there aren't interests to protect, however the interests that are at stake resulting from instability in the region go above and beyond you level of comprehension - apparently.

The short term benefit for the west refers to the corporate controlled governments in the region: think Saudi Arabia, Kuwait. These will eventually blow up in our (or America's) faces.

The amount of control relinquished to the west lies largely in the hands of Mid Eastern leaders, just as it does in any other country. The resentment should be directed at their leaders, who do not do what they should.....build infrastrurctures and maintain a status quo similar to the one you so lovingly speak of when describing the superiority of your country.

The other groups are not necessarily in Iraq: I never said they were.

I know there are other groups, but you said they were being bombed as a resultt of the WOT and would join Al Qaeda et al in order to retailiate. I'm asking who is being bombed outside of Iraq (or Afghanistan) but not apart of the war on terror? Is the bombing supposed to happen later?

My point was there are many terrorist organisations in the world. You recall the ETA, the IRA, to name a few European ones? They started using violence after they had witnessed government controlled violence against their defiant stance. Violence invites violence, thus the IRA and ETA started their history of blowing civilians to pieces, to make their statement carry more weight.
Thus, by invading Iraq, and killing, what, 40,000 civilians now, tens of thousands of "insurgents".....the killing rate under the civilian populace is higher now than under Saddam's brutal rule.

AS for Syria, another country that has no meaning whatsoever in international events, other than to teach more Muslims a lesson in colonial rule. Which will spark the rise of even more terrorists, that wish to destroy Americans.
And thus become "Al Qaeda" - - - - you see where I'm going with the self-fulfilling prophecy? Endless war is endless profit.
Don't tell anyone though.

Your point was about other terrorists being bombed who were not a part of the WOT joining Al Qaeda.

Regarding Syria, as I said, even the biggest nay sayers against the WOT, like France are demanding they cooperate. Is the significance of France's present stance on Syria not evident to you?

Ok, one more time.
Civil war in Iraq was not happening at all, because Saddam was a brutal DICTATOR, one of the most efficient of modern times, and thus no dissent was allowed. He was playing the different factions like a violin.
Civil war is now on the brink of erupting, because the power vacuum left by ousting Saddam, is not going to be filled with CIA backed frauds that pretend to be politicians. Civil war would be an excellent excuse for America to get out of this mess, so I predict it's going to be any time now. Give it a year.

What makes you think extremists will then become the victors of such a civil war? Because they are more extreme? What?
The largest forces will be projected by the moderates, so they will logically be victorious. Only the constant meddling in Iraq's affairs, will give the extremists a chance of getting the popular vote behind them. The unifying cause: a common hatred of America.

What makes you think civil war wasn't on the "brink" prior to the onset of the war in Iraq? The fact that Saddam was a brutal dictator, does not erase all threats - internal, external, the old lady down the way and support from more powerful influential nations, groups and so on. kay?

And, if you read what I've written over and over and over and over, I've never said I thought extremists would win. Again, I said instability, instability, instabilty. Remeber, you even agreed....a bit, then changed your mind?

I meant did: the Netherlands, Denmark, Britain to name a few.
The popular vote was 85% against invasion of Iraq, but since we are democracies, the governments supported it. The Netherlands and Britain only for financial reasons.
Everybody was benefitting from the oil for food program.
Yes, that was cowardly I agree.
Invading Iraq on a pack of lies is not cowardly, no, but not the opposite of cowardly (i.e. heroically) either. It's just evil.

Oh, the general "populace". So what. They preferred Saddam and the UN run the country or they remove him on their own somehow. Good for them.

And who's benefitting from the invasion? Not the common Iraqi, not the common civilian in the world either. Oil companies, defence/arms companies, they make millions off the war. What about the "conflict of interest" again?

Guns or Butter.

George W. Bush, 1978-84: senior executive, Arbusto Energy/Bush Exploration, an oil company; 1986-90: senior executive of the Harken oil company. Dick Cheney, 1995-2000: chief executive of the Halliburton oil company. Condoleezza Rice, 1991-2000: senior executive with the Chevron oil company, which named an oil tanker after her. And so on.

"Why of course the people don't want war....But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along. Whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger." - Hermann Goering, Hitler's designated successor.

They're all people who have a bigger and better understanding of the global economy and how oil fits than toi.