What should we ask of Bush II.2?

When George W Bush was reelected President of the United States on 2 November 2004, much of the rest of the world let out a collective groan. What can we expect of his second administration? As important: what should we demand of it?

See TGA's Guardian columns on this subject

  
Bush Wins Election

Debate - Page 10/12

Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
> Michel Bastian responded: "Nice word, a bit like 'friendly fire'. Tell that to the families of the 'collateral damage'."
I am quite willing to do that, Michel. How about you?
I´m not american, so I´m not the one who should do the telling.

> I wrote: The latter is a Crime. When the Former occurs (accidental death, that is), we duly express our regrets, and then everyone duly forgets about it and goes on with their lives.
Michel Bastian responded: "Nope, YOU forget about it. The families of the victims will definitely not forget. And don´t be surprised if they don´t exactly worship Americans in the future." I don't expect them to 'worship Americans in the future', but I do think I can reasonably expect them to understand the difference between Accidental Death and Deliberate Murder, just as I think I can reasonably expect you to understand that difference, too.
Sure, I do. I didn´t say anything about deliberate murder (although with the fresh reports on homicide in american prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan, I might).

> Death by accident, while regrettable, does not equate to and is not at all the same as Conscious and Deliberate Murder.
Michel Bastian wrote: "Well, no, Phil, Ray doesn´t need law courses, you do. When somebody runs over another person in a car, albeit by accident, he also gets booked and put in prison if he´s criminally negligent. And 'criminal negligence' could well be the motto for most every aspect of the Iraq war."
Well, No, Michel, Ray does need law classes, and so do you. When somebody runs over another person in a car, albeit by accident, he DOESN'T get booked. He DOESN'T get put in prison.
Sure he does. It´s called "Manslaughter", and you can bet he´d be put into prison. But you´re right, we´re digressing.
> Put quite simply, Michel, servicemen and women who are risking or potentially risking their lives on behalf of the nation, are rightly and correctly accorded more leeway than ordinary civilians whose lives are seldom, if ever, at risk. And behavior that occurs in Wartime, when fighting men are at constant risk of death or injury and have to make instantaneous kill-or-be-killed decisions, is correctly not treated the same as behavior in Peacetime where the constant risk of death or injury is not present and where people are not under the same life-or-death stresses.
Sure, but one has to ask oneself: who put those military personel in the war situation, thereby also endangering innocent civilians? Bush and his administration did.
> As an example of this, during the first Gulf War (1990-1991), the worst air-to-ground "friendly fire" incident of the war occurred when two US A-10 pilots, confident they were over the Iraqi armored column they were to attack, <...> However, such things happen in the "fog of war", and can be expected to unfortunately continue to happen.
Fog of war, eh? Let me give you a counterexample: On 03-24-2003, an american A-10 (ground attack plane) attacked a british Household Cavalry column near Basra in spite of the fact the british were displaying enormous Union Jacks on their vehicles and had special thermal identification aids on them. There were civilians around the vehicles and the A-10 made not one but TWO attack passes in spite of frantic waving by the non-injured british on the second pass. 1 british soldier died (on the second attack pass), three others were badly injured. Comment by one of the injured soldiers: "Combat is what I've been trained for. I can command my vehicle. I can keep it from being attacked. What I have not been trained to do is look over my shoulder to see whether an American is shooting at me." The A-10 wasn´t under attack, there was no threat whatsoever to it by either the vehicle column or anybody else, there was no urgency about the whole situation. The pilot hadn´t been given an order to shoot, failed to turn on his thermal sight to identify the brits, overlooked the union jacks and failed to get radio confirmation for the attack from his base. So much for criminal negligence. Nothing "fog-of-war"-ish about it. Don´t know what happened to the pilot, but in the french air force he would have been court martialed and probably jailed for life.
However, you´re right in one respect: in war, things like that happen more easily. That´s exactly why we didn´t want to go to war unnecessarily in the first place.

Nick, USA

Whether we call it New Europe or Old Europe, we Americans
have an expression:
It's a nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there.

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
> Now, those were some interesting and eyebrow-raising comments by Michel. And frankly I'd like Michel to explain himself a bit.
(a) To begin with, Michel: Just precisely how do you "know" that the Sunnis "will not accept the elections"?
Bombings everywhere. Just look at the situation. Also, even the so-called "democratic" forces (Kurds and Shi´ites) are having trouble electing a government.
> Furthermore, just precisely how do you "know" that "they won´t accept democracy as a whole"? What special insight or "connection" to the Sunnis do you possess that makes you so self-assured in proclaiming that democracy in Iraq is "doomed" to failure?
It´s not necessarily doomed to failure, I didn´t say that. I just said it´s off to a bad start and it´s going to take an enormously long time for the Iraqi people to adapt to a western-style democracy, much longer than the Bush administration would have us believe. The problem is that Iraqis are predominantly traditional muslims and have been raised in a totalitarian state and culture. You can´t just tell people like that "right, from now on you´re democrats". They won´t understand what you´re talking about because they´ve never experienced what democracy really means. And even if they do understand what you mean, many of them will see it as just another ploy by "the great satan" (meaning the US, but also all the other western nations) to kill off their way of life and impose their own "western decadence". Now I know that´s not true (mostly) and you know that´s not true. But imagine you´re an Iraqi, brought up on a daily diet of fundamental islam since you were born, never even having heard of things like separation of powers, rule of the people etc. etc. How would you react? Right, you´d see the whole thing as a crusade against what the prophet told you was the only way of life permissible. And if some mullah or other tells you, you´ll start planting bombs and sniping at supply columns without even a second thought.

> After all, several Sunni Muslim parties did, in fact, run for office in the Iraqi elections. And they did receive some votes. Which, I might add, clearly indicates that some Sunni Muslims did, in fact, vote.
In fact, about the only things that I think you can say with any certainty about the Sunnis' participation in elections, are
(1) Some Sunni Muslim parties did run for office and did participate in elections.
(2) Some Sunni Muslims did vote.
(3) Some Sunni Muslims did not vote because due to the threat of violence, polling places never opened in their areas.
(4) Some Sunni Muslims did not vote because due to the threat of violence, polling stations in their areas did open but closed early.
(5) Some Sunni Muslims did not vote because due to the threat of violence, they were afraid to venture to the polling places for fear of being targeted or attacked.
(6) Some Sunni Muslims did not vote, even though they wanted to, because they are waiting for their local religious leader(s) to say it's okay for them to vote.
and finally...
(7) Some Sunni Muslims did not vote because they don't believe in democracy.
QED. That´s exactly what I mean.
> (b) Just precisely how do you "know", Michel, that there are "large parts of the Kurds and all the rest of the population that don´t like democracy and don´t want democracy"? Kurdish political parties did in fact participate in elections and swept the northern regions of Iraq.
See above.
(c) If you seriously believe that I "don´t even make the slightest effort to understand their culture and mentality", then what qualifies you to presume to speak as an 'expert'on "their culture and mentality"?
What bugs me is that the Bush administration makes no effort (or no sufficient effort) to understand these people and thinks it´s enough just to transplant western political systems into Iraq and the people will welcome it with open arms, hugs and kisses. That´s dangerously naive. Some of them will, but not all of them by far and those who don´t will be on the barricades (literally) disrupting any possibility of a normal, functioning civilian society.

> (d) If you actually believe that you are qualified to speak as an 'expert' with regard to the Sunnis' "culture and mentality", perhaps you'd like to explain what that 'culture and mentality" is, and why it would supposedly "preclude" them from accepting democracy?
See above. It doesn´t preclude them from accepting democracy, but it´ll take a few years (or even decades) for them to get used to it, to see that it´s not an attack on their way of life or their beliefs, and also to iron out the conflicts that are bound to occur between basic fundamentalist islamic tenets and basic tenets of a democratic system.
> (e) And finally.... Since you seem to consider yourself to be something of an 'expert' on everything that we in America are supposedly doing 'wrong' in Iraq, and since you seem to claim expertise in stating that the Sunnis don't want and will not accept Democracy.... perhaps, then, you will deign to enlighten us with your proposed "solution" for Iraq?
I am particularly interested in reading your proposed 'solution' for satisfying the "culture and mentality" of Iraqi Sunni community.
And I am especially curious to see if your proposed "solution" amounts to saying "Let's just repeal the whole thing; let's just give the Sunnis back their 'leader' Dictator; let's let Saddam out of jail and put him back in charge; and above all, let's assure the Sunnis that they'll soon be able to get back to dominating everyone else in Iraq, as they always did when Saddam was in power".
Nope, that´s not my solution at all, and had you read all my other posts you wouldn´t be posting this nonsense. My solution is quite simply: keep the US military presence in Iraq, be prepared to stay on a few years or even a few decades (so forget about any exit strategy as of yet). I´d even say send in some european troops as well, even if it´s just a token force, but unfortunately nobody important ever listens to me ;-). Try to get the security situation stabilized over time (and cross your fingers it won´t get worse) by preventing terrorism as far as possible. In the meantime, get the europeans to build up the civilian side of things so basic commodities (like food, housing, medical care etc.) can be provided on a regular basis (people who are well fed and taken care of will be less prone to plant IEDs on roadsides). Build schools, staff them with western-educated iraqi teachers who understand their way of life AND the western political culture if at all possible. Work with moderate mullahs and imams on that so you won´t be seen as imposing your own, western rule on education. Then educate the young Iraqis so they won´t be prone to listen to fundamentalist mullahs anymore. For the adult Iraqis, show them through example what a democratic society can do. Try to integrate all parties into the political process, even those that are now fuelling the insurrection. Sounds like a fond dream that´ll never happen? It probably is, but I can´t see any other possibility to get out of this nightmare.
> Last but not least... Michel Bastian wrote: "It´ll take a lot of time for democratic principles to catch on in Iraq.".
My response is: It'll take an especially long time if we allow ourselves to be so deceived and taken in by supposed "experts" claiming that Iraqis "don't really want democracy", that we do not even "start" planting the roots of those democratic principles.
Like I said, I´ve never advocated "doing nothing". However, dreaming up that "Iraq is a democracy now" and the "mission is accomplished" will ultimately lead to a catastrophe, especially if the Bush administration should decide to pull out of Iraq in the next two or three years or if they neglect to build up a civilian society over time. You wanted to bring democracy to the middle-east? Well now you should darn well deliver, eventhough it´s going to cost you (and us) ..... a lot more than you think.

Mike, London

The way I see it- the Sunnis were the ruling minority before the topple of Saddam. Democracy for them, therefore, means losing their political voice as, contrary to the democracies of the countries in which we are typing from, voters place ethnic loyalties before political ideology as we do. You'll hate me for saying it, but at least Saddam more-or-less united Iraq. Now it's all very messy, and is going to take a long, long time to sort out (look at the Balkans in the past 100 years). I think it suited the politicians in galvanising public to support for the war to give the impression that it was just a case of rolling in, installing democracy, and making everyone happy. Democracy in Iraq is likely to be the rule of the many, but also the marginalisation of a great many. I'd love to be able to suggest a neat solution, but all I can imagine is a lengthy damage-limitation exercise in which foreign powers will have to do their co-operative best to try and hold Iraq together for the next few generations. I'm afraid I'm quite cynical about Iraq's direction and conceive of a long cyclical future of violence in Iraq.

Charles Warren, USA

Tom from Poland/USA wrote...
"When Poles tried to revolt from communism in mid 19th century, [apparently against General Secretary Tsar Alexander II] American stood by doing nothing." and then goes on to say that I don't know anything about Polish history. He whines about America not invading Russia to liberate Poland. Well, Tom, do you think the French and Germans would have supported us if we did ? Could we have attacked Russia without total allied support ? Be realistic.
In the 80s it was Reagan who confronted the Soviet Union. Your precious Europeans were perfectly willing to accept a peace that permanently consigned you to Soviet rule. How many Europeans supported Solidarity ? Weren't the Europeans doing their best to avoid doing anything that might upset Russia ? Didn't they look upon Solidarity as troublemakers ? And you think they would risk "a new stone age" to protect you ?
One amusing point that Bastian keeps insisting on is that America somehow pressures India, Japan, and most of Asia to not join the "rest of the world" in that European abomination the ICC, as if they haven't the strength and will to define their interests for themselves (typical European arrogance). Gee, we sure must be absolutely omnipotent if we can bully all those strong military and economic regional powers supposedly clamoring for the wisdom of Europe to be bestowed upon them. Maybe they, like we, take sovereignty seriously and see nothing to be gained from subordinating our laws to anyone. We're not forcibly preventing them from joining the ICC. We can't. We would only anger them if we tried. And fail at that. They just don't want to join and we have no reason to urge them to do so. So don't blame us for the fact that the Asians can look out for themselves.
And I wasn't aware that "counterrevolution" was a specifically communist term. The English Cavaliers and American Tories and French emigres were "counterrevolutionaries", weren't they, so your comment was silly. The Iraqi insurgency is a counterrevolution of Sunni domination against religious liberty for Shiites. A counterrevolution of the old Baathist state security apparatus trying to get its BMW and Rolex lifestyle back against the new democracy. A counterrevolution of the Sunni Triangle against wealth and power flowing to the Kurdish and Shiite areas now instead of everything being sucked into Baghdad. Since the allocation of power and resources has been so grossly unfair for so long in Iraq (a ton to Tikritis and everything in general to Sunnis), in any fair allocation the Sunnis will lose most of what they were used to. So fairness will create counterrevolution and "insurgency". So does that make "fairness" a bad thing ? Of course not. It just means that if the Iraqi people mean to be free, the price of their freedom, and freedom always has a price, is to beat the insurgency. And given their total failure to derail the political process, they have no hope of victory.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: "As for your "envy" theory: why should France envy the US? Because of 9/11? Because the US are now the official target of choice of every suicide-bombing idiot in the world?"
And that is different from before 9/11? How? You don't remember the Hezbollah suicide/homicide bombing of the US Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 Marines -- in 1983? You don't recall the murder of the CIA station chief in Beirut in 1983, a murder so horrific it would have made even a German puke? He was tortured to death. You don't remember the bombings of US Embassies in Africa in 1998 that killed hundreds of people and injured thousands more? How about the suicide-bombing of the USS Cole which killed 17 sailors and nearly blew a billion-dollar vessel in half? And of course, let's not forget 9/11 itself - 3,000 more deaths. ALL of these horrific events took place BEFORE we Liberated Iraq. And you're claiming that Iraq made things WORSE? For God's sake, how much "worse" could it possibly be?
WAKE UP, MICHEL. Iraq DIDN'T make the Islamic extremists hate us. THEY HATED US ALREADY. They had considered themselves to be at war with us for years before we Liberated Iraq. DECADES, in fact. The difference now is, WE AGREE THAT WE'RE AT WAR and WE'RE GOING TO KILL THEM.
Because the US are about as popular as a kick in the teeth in most parts of the world nowadays? Believe you me, we´re quite satisfied with our role in global politics without all that, thank you very much.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: "Wow, Phil, all you neo-con americans definitely have a knack for alienating your former friends and allies. "Anti-American socialist in Soviet Canuckistan", is it? Well, if the Canadians weren´t anti-american before, they sure will be now, and I can´t say I blame them." Well, Michel, if you had spent as much time living in Canada as I have, you'd understand that Canadians have always been anti-American to a certain extent. The intensity of it waxes and wanes, but it's always been there and is still there. It's a constant, and it's a 'given'. Canadians are forever making smarmy, smug, self-satisified, self-congratulating comments to themselves about how supposedly superior Canada is in comparison to the US (tactfully ignoring the thousands of Canadians who emigrate to the US every year). Sometimes we actually get annoyed enough to be bothered responding and referring to them as "anti-American socialists in Soviet Canuckistan". Usually we just ignore them, just as we usually ignore Canada in general, which makes them even crazier because it makes it obvious to them that we don 't care if they hate us or not. We're benevolently and good-naturedly ignorant about Canada, while Canadians are malevolently well-informed about the U.S. The day that we become magnificently well-informed about Canada will probably be the day that U.S.-Canada relations plunge into the toilet, because we'll know (and dislike) enough about them to be a whole lot less benevolently-minded.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: "Yes, there are Ba´athist elements in the insurgents, but they´re not the driving force at all. The driving force are Muslim fanatics, both Shi´ites and Sunni, partly supported by al Quaida, and many of them non-Iraqis." Wrong, again. The insurgency is almost entirely made up of resentful Sunni Muslims, almost all of whom are Iraqis. The Shi'ites not only do not make up much of the insurgency, they're actively opposed to it. They stand to benefit the most from Saddam's overthrow. They're not interested in bringing Saddam back into power, whereas the Sunnis ARE interested in that. There's a few non-Iraqi al-Qaida members involved, too, but they're a tiny minority, and they don't even have much support of their own in Iraq. In fact there are an awful lot of Iraqis who'd like to kill the al-Qaida fanatics, and some have actually done so. Iraqis are Muslims, but they'relargely secular in their outlook, whereas the al-Qaida nutcases are Islamic fanatics a'la the Taliban.
Oh BTW Michel, try looking under the following link:
REPORT: BRITISH AGENTS SAW LITTLE ABUSE
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: "I am fully aware that US troops didn´t commit the bombings. That´s not the point. The point is they should have stayed out of Iraq in the first place, then there wouldn´t have been any bombings, there wouldn´t have been any Fallujah, there wouldn´t have been any dead American soldiers or civilian war casualties, there wouldn´t have been death by disease and hunger due to failing infrastructure etc. etc". And if we had stayed out of Iraq, there would have been continuing mass murders of Kurds and Shi'ites by the minority-but-in-power Sunni/Tikriti Muslims, there would have been continuing arrests and electric-shock and water torture and amputations carried out by Saddam's secret police, Uday's people-shredding machines would have kept gleefully grinding away. Instead of dead American soldiers, there would merely be more dead Iraqi non-soldiers. Instead of civilian war casualties, there merely would have been still more civilian non-war casualties. Instead of death by disease and hunger due to failing infrastructure, there would merely have been still more death by deliberate brutality on the part of Saddam's minions. The murderous "infrastructure" of Saddam's regime would have remained firmly in place. And that's something that you have already tacitly acknowledged, or at least accorded a high degree of probability. And those deaths under Saddam's regime, are apparently something you are okay and comfortable with. You might morally disapprove of them, but it isn't like you'd actually "DO" anything to stop those deaths -- would you? After all, you have yourself acknowledged that "Yes, probably [those slaughters by Saddam's forces would have continued] but it doesn't justify the invasion, does it?". It raises an interesting question for you, Michel: What level of internal beastiality against its own citizens does a murderous regime have to rise to before an external invasion and liberation can be considered "justifiable" to you? What is the threshhold of slaughter that has to be crossed before you are morally okay with invading? If, for example, Hitler had confined his slaughter of humanity to people "inside" Germany's borders, if he hadn't invaded any other country, would that have been alright with you? Would you have left him safely in power?

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

I previously wrote: "In fact Saddam's track record in having previously ordered his commanders to slaughter Kurds and Shi'ites in the 1980s and 1990s (both before AND after the 1990-1991 Gulf War) virtually guarantees that Saddam would have resumed murdering Kurds and Shi'ites as soon as the opportunity presented itself. The leopard doesn't change his spots, Michel. Ever."
Michel Bastian responded: "Didn´t say that. He was a mass murderer, but he didn´t commit mass murder on the scale of the Kurd or Shi´ite massacres every day, you know." Ah,I see, yes, that's so much better. he didn't commit mass murder on the scale of the Kurd or Shi´ite massacres every day. Maybe just days that ended in 'Y' during a month that ended in 'T' and on a date that ended in a '4'or a '5'. He wasn't a CONSTANT mass-murderer, he was just an OCCASIONAL mass murderer. Once every so often, especially when his mistress was having 'that time of the month'. Yes, that makes me feel so much better.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Charles Warren had written: Had there been no invasion they would be happily filling mass graves and Uday's people shredder would be grinding away.
Michel Bastian responded: "*Sigh*. Yes, true, but does that justify the invasions? No, it doesn´t. See all the above posts."
Charles Warren had also written: Instead of carbombs there would be the usual disappearances, torture, and mass executions.
To which Michel Bastian responded: "Probably. I ask again: did that justify invasion? The answer, as always, is no. It didn´t."
Ahhh, I see. Saddam's minions filling mass graves with perceived "enemies". Uday's people-shredder happily grinding away. Disappearances, torture, and mass executions -- all "unfortunate but no reason to invade". "No reason to get involved". "Deplorable" and all, but not sufficiently "deplorable" to actually "DO ANYTHING" to stop it. Ah, I see your logic, Michel. I understand. Really, I do. Regime launches unprovoked attack against a foreign country -- action against that regime is possibly justified. Regime does not launch attacks against any foreign country, but merely calmly slaughters hundreds of thousands of its own citizens -- no action against that regime is "justified" or "legal", the regime's behavior is "deplorable" but it's still "none of our business". Ergo: "Let them Die". Thank you, Michel, I now have an excellent understanding of how the Holocaust was allowed to occur.

Michel Bastian wrote: "Another group rightly perceived as enemies by Saddam were the Kurds, who also threatened his totalitarian rule." BS. The Kurds never once "threatened" Saddam's rule. They never had the military force or cohesion to pose any serious "threat" to Saddam. Unfortunately.

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
I´m not going to respond in detail to your posts, since I haven´t got the time (and, no doubt, all the other people on this board are starting to get bored). Suffice it to say that no, you don´t understand anything, especially not my arguments. For the hundreth time: was there a reason for the Bush administration to invade Iraq before all the other countries run by a murderous dictator? Yes, there was: self-interest, greed for power and oil, a desire to show the world "who the boss is" after France, Germany and Russia had the cheek to oppose him and a need to save face once it became apparent the reasons given for going to war were erroneous. Stop this fairy tale about Bush being "the great liberator of the Iraqi people" and the "bringer of freedom and democracy". If Bush was so keen on bringing the light of democracy to the world, all right, what is he going to do about all those other countries where injustice, poverty and totalitarism run rampant? Nothing? Surprise, surprise.
Bush is a callous power politician who is mainly interested in one thing: maintaining power and status for a. himself and b. the US, in that order. All the non-american rest of the world is completely irrelevant to him. He wouldn´t have invaded Iraq just to "liberate the Iraqis from oppression" in a million years. He wouldn´t have sacrificed even one single american life for that. He had other reasons, the reasons I´ve given above. The Iraq war had nothing to do with humanitarian reasons, and if you honestly believe that, you´re more naive than I thought.
Just a word about those holocaust and nazi Germany remarks of yours, though: if you had even the faintest inkling of what impact the holocaust and the war had on the german psyche and on Europe in general you´d be red in the face with shame right now. The current mindset in the central european population is due in great part to the aftermath of the holocaust. It´s the main reason why we´re running riot against the Bush administration´s prison camps and torture orders. Too many bad memories. However, knowing you, you couldn´t be bothered. After all, all this stuff is going on outside the US, isn´t it?

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Mike in London wrote: "The way I see it- the Sunnis were the ruling minority before the topple of Saddam. Democracy for them, therefore, means losing their political voice as, contrary to the democracies of the countries in which we are typing from, voters place ethnic loyalties before political ideology as we do. You'll hate me for saying it, but at least Saddam more-or-less united Iraq."
Iraq had been ruled by the Ottoman Turks for hundreds of years until the defeat of the Ottoman Empire. The (formerly secret) Sykes-Picot treaty (signed in 1916) revealed that France and Britain divided the Arab territories between themselves. The French, Germans, British (who were basically responsible for drawing up Iraq's present-day boundaries) and other European colonialists had a habit of haphazardly slamming together dissimilar and often-mutually-hostile communities and groups to form "nations", and Iraq is one example of this. Forcibly slamming together Kurds, Shi'ites, Sunnis, Turkomen etc. against their will and calling the result a "nation" is a recipe for trouble, in my opinion.
To me, saying Iraq was "united" by Saddam Hussein is an awul lot like saying the USSR was "united" by Stalin. He "united" the USSR by invading and forcibly "welcoming" countries and peoples (the Baltic nations, Ukraine) into the USSR against their will, and by using starvation, brutality, etc. to enforce the "unity". It was a "unity" that was imposed, but never "desired". And as soon as the threat of military force against would-be 'defector' nations vanished, most of the former Soviet republics chose to go their own way. Especially the ones who had been incorporated into the USSR by force and never 'wanted' to be 'united' into the USSR in the first place, like the Baltic nations (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia).
The way I see it, any supposed "nation" that could only be "united" by brutal military force probably shouldn't be "united" in the first place. And to me, claiming that "at least Saddam more-or-less united Iraq" is like claiming that despite the 20 million or so deaths that can be laid directly at his door, Josef Stalin "more or less united the USSR". It's not an 'achievement' to be proud of. It never should have been 'united' in the first place.

Jan Paul, USA

But Saddam did invade another country and that was why he had to comply with inspectors who to the day they left prior to the U.S. entry thought he was "hiding" something." Saddam Hussein who plotted to assassinate the first Bush President.
Saddam Hussein who was firing on British and U.S. military planes in violation of the agreement that ended Desert Storm.
Saddam Hussein, who was harboring Zarqawi after having several warnings and chances to turn him over.
Saddam Hussein, who troops dump WMD (in at least some quantities) into the River as troops arrived.
Saddam Hussein who smuggled truck loads of who knows what into Syria at the beginning of the war. Money? WMD? Records? Who knows but the shipments were documented and kept secret to this day. Why, if innocent, does Syria need to keep them secret since Saddam is no longer in power?
Saddam Hussein who was financing terrorism with $25,000 payments to suicide bomber families and repeatedly warned to stop.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: "Should the US turn into an oppressive regime because of 9/11?". An 'oppressive regime'? No, not an 'oppressive' regime. But reasonable people can disagree on the definition of 'oppressive'. Certainly we in America should have a government that is careful, vigilant and which recognizes that it is operating on a wartime footing, not a peacetime footing. And while respect for civil liberties is certainly always desirable, the War On Terrorism is not the first conflict in which the U.S. has felt it necessary to temporarily curtail some civil liberties in order to prosecute a war. Pres. Abraham Lincoln suspended some civil liberties during the American Civil War. And when Nazi German agents (spies, terrorists, saboteurs) operating clandestinely in the U.S. were uncovered during World War II, nobody particularly cared about their civil rights; the Nazi agents were put before a military tribunal, not a civilian trial, and most of them were executed.
See the following:
Amazon.com: Books: Saboteurs: The Nazi Raid on America
http://www.amazon.com/

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

I previously wrote: The Lebanese mobilized public protests and demonstrations that brought down a pro-Syrian puppet government. The Saudis organized and allowed the first democratic elections in their entire History --limited, municipal-level elections, but elections nonetheless.
Michel Bastian responded: "(a) The Lebanese didn´t need Bush to tell them they wanted the Syrians out of Lebanon.....(b) The Palestinians were lucky in that Arafat died. Now the Israelis talk to them again, and they can talk to the Israelis. Nothing to do with Iraq. (c) As for the "democratic" elections in Saudi-Arabia, they were neither democratic (next to no women voters turned out due to traditionalist views in saudi society) nor were they a result of the Iraq war."
Yeah, sure. Riiiiiiiiight. (a) If the Lebanese didn´t need Bush to tell them they wanted the Syrians out of Lebanon, why did it take the Lebanese almost 20 years for them to get the courage to say so out loud? Couldn't have had 'anything' to do with the Lebanese people tuning in on their satellite TV systems, seeing peaceful political demonstrations and people in Iraq choosing who will build their new political and electoral system, and deciding they wanted that for themselves, could it. (b) Yeah, riiiiiiiiight. The Palestinians "didn't" rise up and demonstrate demanding democratic reforms and the ouster of Arafat's sleazy cronies. It was all faked on a sound stage somewhere, huh? (c) Yeah, riiiiiiiiight. The Saudis have secret-ballot elections for the first time in their history, but it "can't" be considered to be democratic because the Saudis didn't violate their cultural traditions, yet, by allowing women to vote. And of course "You're" the ultimate Decider of what constitutes Democracy now, huh? So I guess this also means you want us to throw out the results of every single election in U.S. history prior to August 1920 (when the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, allowing women to vote) because they "weren't actually democratic", huh?

Mike, London

Phil-
If you are justifying the invasion of Iraq because some Iraqis (probably) exhibit an affiliation for extremist Islamic terrorism, I'm sure that you would agree that Britain should have bombed the USA because of the support some of it's citizens and politicians showed for the IRA?
Furthermore, the fact that the USA has killed far more civilians that Saddam could have dreamed of killing all over the world by way of furthering it's own national interests, would mean you would agree with 'regime change' in the USA?
Or could it be you are a racist who cannot conceive of the lives of foreigners as having any worth?
The fact is the world is full of difficult problems and problem governments. Blowing them up is not a solution for any government any more than it is for terrorists- it just shows a lack of imagination on behalf of those who swallow the propaganda whilst blinding themeselves to any aspect that doesn't make them feel good about their country/ cause (and, by extension, themeselves).

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michael Bastian wrote: (a) "The insurgency wouldn´t be there if there weren´t any US troops in Iraq." (b) "Nobody was allied to Saddam at that time...". (c) "Repeal the war? How should that be done? By pulling out the troops? Bad idea. The effects of the war are there, and they would lead to an instant civil war if the US pulled out." (d) "You can´t "uninvade" Iraq, and you can´t do anything about the insurgency except trying to ferret out the persons responsible for it and buying time for the people to get used to a democratic system." (e) "It´s creating ripples allright. Ripples that even someone as obtuse as I am can see. Ripples of pan-Arabism. Ripples of Muslim fanaticism." (f) "Democracy is contagious. And the so-called "Arab Street" wants Democracy.
Does it? Most Middle-East scholars contest that, but hey, Bush says so, so it has to be right." (g) "I wasn´t asleep. Nor did I see any "government" being elected. I saw a provisional government being elected that has to work out the basics of an Iraqi constitution. Let´s see how the different factions react to that." (h) "Haven´t seen you apologize for insulting people on this board, so take it like a man." (i) "Actually, I´m Satan in person. I must be because I´m agnostic, liberal, European, half French and, god help us, half German. Does the word "prejudice" mean anything to you, Phil?" (j) "Nope, your responses aren´t haughtily condescending. That would imply a certain degree of sophistication."
My responses: (a) That's because the 'insurgency' would still be in power and running Uday and Qusai's people-grinding machines if there weren't any US troops in Iraq. (b) Except for the Palestinians, of course, who have a track record of never missing an opportunity to back the wrong side. (c) Well, I hate to agree with Michel on anything ;-) But in this case, we're in full agreement. (d) Gadzooks, we agree again. (3) As opposed to the Muslim fanaticism that's been around for the last 30 or so years? Pan-Arabism is nothing new. It's a 60's concept. (f) "Most Middle East scholars"? What are their names? Fareed Zakaria isn't one of them, BTW. (g) So, you did see a government being elected, or you did not see a government being elected. Which is it? 'Provisional' or not, it's still a government. The different factions are reacting by wheeling and dealing and negotiating. It's called politicking. (h) I haven't insulted others much, if at all. Maybe your perception on that is a bit off. (i) Well, no, you're not Satan, Michel. Calling yourself Satan would be predicated on your first believing in the existence of Satan and, as you indicated, you're an agnostic. And yes, the word 'prejudice' means a great deal to me, especially with all the prejudicial incidents of harassment of Jews happening in Europe these days. (j) I was referring to 'your' responses, dude. And you haven't seen 'rude' from me, yet.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: (a) (Phil): When somebody runs over another person in a car, albeit by accident, he DOESN'T get booked. He DOESN'T get put in prison. (Michel): "Sure he does. It´s called "Manslaughter", and you can bet he´d be put into prison. But you´re right, we´re digressing." (b) "Fog of war, eh? Let me give you a counterexample.....<> Nothing "fog-of-war"-ish about it. Don´t know what happened to the pilot, but in the french air force he would have been court martialed and probably jailed for life."
My responses: (a) Nope. It's an Accident, and we DON'T put anyone in prison. And yes, we are digressing. (b) The pilot didn't NEED to ask for 'permission' to fire, didn't 'need' to be under attack first. He shouldn't have mistaken the Brits for Iraqis, but if you claim he "failed to turn on his thermal sights" then it obviously happened at night. Clear "fog of war" case if ever there was one. And nothing happened to the pilot. Nor should it. It was an accident. And that's why I thank God that we don't serve in the French Air Force. You volunteer to serve your country, for which alone they should give you a medal, and then if you make a mistake in the French Air Force they jail you for life. Small wonder no one wants to volunteer for the French military eh?

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
> My responses: (a) Nope. It's an Accident, and we DON'T put anyone in prison. And yes, we are digressing.
.. which is why I won´t push the issue any further. Never mind.
> (b) The pilot didn't NEED to ask for 'permission' to fire, didn't 'need' to be under attack first. He shouldn't have mistaken the Brits for Iraqis, but if you claim he "failed to turn on his thermal sights" then it obviously happened at night.
It happened in plain daylight, which is probably why the thermal sight was off, I´ll grant you that (though given the thermal identification marks, the pilot was probably under orders to switch on his thermal sight for ID). However, I´ve seen pictures of those Union Jacks. You´d have to be drunk to miss those.
> Clear "fog of war" case if ever there was one. And nothing happened to the pilot.
Why am I not surprised.
> Nor should it. It was an accident.
Well, that´s why there are rules of engagement which the pilot broke: you don´t shoot at a target unless you have clearly identified it as enemy or the target starts shooting at you. If you´re not sure, you ask for confirmation. That´s what they have radio for in those planes, you know.
> And that's why I thank God that we don't serve in the French Air Force.
You didn´t serve in anything afaik, did you now? So who´s "we"?
> You volunteer to serve your country, for which alone they should give you a medal,
Well, I happen to have been a reserve officer of the french air force for the better part of the last fifteen years, so tell me about it, Phil, since you´re such a specialist on military matters. Hint: don´t take your knowledge from Tom Clancy novels.
> and then if you make a mistake in the French Air Force they jail you for life.
No, they jail you for criminal behaviour, as well they should in the US air force, too.
> Small wonder no one wants to volunteer for the French military eh?
No shortage of applications, to my knowledge. Different from the US military nowadays I gather.

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
> (a) If the Lebanese didn´t need Bush to tell them they wanted the Syrians out of Lebanon, why did it take the Lebanese almost 20 years for them to get the courage to say so out loud? Couldn't have had 'anything' to do with the Lebanese people tuning in on their satellite TV systems, seeing peaceful political demonstrations and people in Iraq choosing who will build their new political and electoral system, and deciding they wanted that for themselves, could it.
No, it couldn´t. It probably had to do with the fact they´ve been building up resentment against syrian occupation for twenty-odd years and with the fact Hariri got murdered. You did hear about that?
> (b) The Palestinians "didn't" rise up and demonstrate demanding democratic reforms and the ouster of Arafat's sleazy cronies. It was all faked on a sound stage somewhere, huh?
I´m afraid I don´t understand your argument here. What´s the bearing on Israel and the Palestinians talking to each other again?
> (c) The Saudis have secret-ballot elections for the first time in their history, but it "can't" be considered to be democratic because the Saudis didn't violate their cultural traditions, yet, by allowing women to vote.
Yes, that´s the gist of it. Democracy means rule by the people which includes women regardless of religion. So no, the saudi elections weren´t democratic. And this is a perfect example for my argument: the middle-eastern population has a lot of difficulty accepting basic tenets of democracy because they clash whith their traditional beliefs. Case in point: the saudi elections.
> And of course "You're" the ultimate Decider of what constitutes Democracy now, huh?
No, I didn´t invent democracy and, no, unlike the Bush administration I don´t pretend to be the ultimate judge on what is democratic and what is not. However, there are basic notions tied to the term "democracy" that even the Bush administration has to accept if it doesn´t want to loose what little credibility it has left in the world.
> So I guess this also means you want us to throw out the results of every single election in U.S. history prior to August 1920 (when the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, allowing women to vote) because they "weren't actually democratic", huh?
By the contemporary definition of democracy, no, those elections weren´t democratic. That´s why the suffragettes had to take to the streets. You can´t "throw" these elections "out", of course, but that doesn´t mean you can´t learn from history.

Michel Bastian, France


text: To Phil Karasick:
> No, not an 'oppressive' regime. But reasonable people can disagree on the definition of 'oppressive'. <....> nobody particularly cared about their civil rights; the Nazi agents were put before a military tribunal, not a civilian trial, and most of them were executed.
See the following:
Amazon.com: Books: Saboteurs: The Nazi Raid on America
All this had nothing to do with breaking international and US law, condoning torture, imprisoning people without due process etc.


Michel Bastian, France

To Jan Paul:
> But Saddam did invade another country and that was why he had to comply with inspectors who to the day they left prior to the U.S. entry thought he was "hiding" something." Saddam Hussein who plotted to assassinate the first Bush President.
Saddam Hussein who was firing on British and U.S. military planes in violation of the agreement that ended Desert Storm.
Saddam Hussein, who was harboring Zarqawi after having several warnings and chances to turn him over.
Saddam Hussein, who troops dump WMD (in at least some quantities) into the River as troops arrived.
Oh, so where are these WMD now? Surely if the US knew where they were dumped, they´d have gotten them out of the river by now, wouldn´t they?
> Saddam Hussein who smuggled truck loads of who knows what into Syria at the beginning of the war. Money? WMD? Records? Who knows but the shipments were documented and kept secret to this day. Why, if innocent, does Syria need to keep them secret since Saddam is no longer in power?
Saddam Hussein who was financing terrorism with $25,000 payments to suicide bomber families and repeatedly warned to stop.
Again, Saddam wasn´t innocent. It´s a good riddance he´s gone. Three cheers for Bush. However, that doesn´t make the invasion right.\

Michel Bastian, France

To Phil Karasick:
> My responses: (a) That's because the 'insurgency' would still be in power and running <....>
Still missing the point.
> (b) Except for the Palestinians, of course, who have a track record of never missing an opportunity to back the wrong side.
Well, they´ve been trying to survive, just like the Israelis, for the last fifty-odd years. So they´ve mostly been backing their own side.
> (3) As opposed to the Muslim fanaticism that's been around for the last 30 or so years? Pan-Arabism is nothing new. It's a 60's concept.
Yes, true.
> (f) "Most Middle East scholars"? What are their names? Fareed Zakaria isn't one of them, BTW.
Take Prof. Avi Shlaim (Iraqi-born israeli), for example. Quote: "This is one of the great contradictions in the neocon outlook on the Middle East: the belief that democracy would lead to pro-Western and pro-Israeli governments in the Arab world. In fact, the reverse is true. The Arab ruling elites are much more pro-American in their attitude to Israel than the Arab street. The rulers are better informed and more pragmatic. The Arabs and the wider Muslim world are bitterly hostile to Israel because of the oppression of the Palestinians; therefore this is a misconception of the neoconservatives, to think that Arab democracies would be friendlier toward the West and Israel."
(g) So, you did see a government being elected, or you did not see a government being elected. Which is it? 'Provisional' or not, it's still a government. The different factions are reacting by wheeling and dealing and negotiating. It's called politicking.
Yup, except that iraqi politics still seem to be tied in with violence to a certain degree.
> (h) I haven't insulted others much, if at all. Maybe your perception on that is a bit off.
I´ll let all the other posters on this site be the judge of that.
> (i) Well, no, you're not Satan, Michel. Calling yourself Satan would be predicated on your first believing in the existence of Satan and, as you indicated, you're an agnostic.
Indeed. Ok, I confess: I´m not Satan :-).
> And yes, the word 'prejudice' means a great deal to me, especially with all the prejudicial incidents of harassment of Jews happening in Europe these days.
Yeah, we´re all decadent anti-semites around here. And you´re all uncultured KKK rednecks.
> (j) I was referring to 'your' responses, dude. And you haven't seen 'rude' from me, yet.
Well, I think I can live without that.

Michel Bastian, France

To Mike, London:
> If you are justifying the invasion of Iraq because some Iraqis (probably) exhibit an affiliation for extremist Islamic terrorism, I'm sure that you would agree that Britain should have bombed the USA because of the support some of it's citizens and politicians showed for the IRA?
Hehe, excellent point, Mike. Let´s drop the bomb on Chicago and Boston. Too many IRA sympathizers there ;-).

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: "I just said it´s off to a bad start and it´s going to take an enormously long time for the Iraqi people to adapt to a western-style democracy, much longer than the Bush administration would have us believe."
I'm not disagreeing with that, Michel. In fact, I agree completely. I'm just saying that considering where the Iraqi people started from, all things considered, the Iraqis are off to a pretty good start in my opinion. Sure, they're not a perfect democracy, yet. Neither was France when it first got started. And an awful lot of people in France kinda lost their heads over it (literally) before France got it sorted out. Okay, so the Iraqis are at the initial stages of forming a government and drafting a Constitution. Cut them some slack, Michel. the point I am making here is not that life in Iraq is "perfect", because God knows, it isn't, or that the country is a fully formed and functioning democracy, because it isn't. It took us 200+ years to get to where we are with regard to democracy, and God only knows, we've made mistakes along the way. The point here, Michel, is that all of this difficult, dangerous, demanding and less than pleasant task of converting a totalitarian state into a fledgling democracy would have taken a lot longer, cost a lot more and would have been infinitely bloodier if we and the Iraqi people had not first made a "start" at it. You have to start somewhere, Michel. For better or for worse, intentionally or otherwise, the start has been made, and now we have to see it through.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: "The problem is that Iraqis are predominantly traditional muslims and have been raised in a totalitarian state and culture. You can´t just tell people like that "right, from now on you´re democrats". They won´t understand what you´re talking about because they´ve never experienced what democracy really means. And even if they do understand what you mean, many of them will see it as just another ploy by "the great satan" (meaning the US, but also all the other western nations) to kill off their way of life and impose their own "western decadence". Now I know that´s not true (mostly) and you know that´s not true. But imagine you´re an Iraqi, brought up on a daily diet of fundamental islam since you were born, never even having heard of things like separation of powers, rule of the people etc. etc. How would you react? Right, you´d see the whole thing as a crusade against what the prophet told you was the only way of life permissible. And if some mullah or other tells you, you´ll start planting bombs and sniping at supply columns without even a second thought."
Yes, they've been raised in a totalitarian state and culture. Whether or not they're "traditional Muslaims" depends on your viewpoint, but I think you're being a bit simplistic. There's as much or more diversity in the Muslim world as in the non-Muslim world, and what's considered to be "traditional" very much depends on where you live. What's "traditional" in Iraq is not the same as what's "traditional" in Saudi Arabia, or Indonesia, or Turkey. What is the "daily diet of fundamental Islam" that you think Iraqis have been raised with? Sure, they're Muslims, but they're more worldly and secular than most Arab states. They're not the Taliban. The Iraqis might not have experienced democracy before, but they seem to be catching on quickly. They're quick studies. And Rule Of The People seems to be something they are adapting to very well. Give them some credit. They're making excellent progress.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Michel Bastian wrote: "But the Guantanamo inmates aren´t given even the benefit of court martial rules. They have no access to a lawyer while getting interrogated, they are driven to depositions under torture (or "stress inducing methods", if you prefer), they are detained for years on end without charge or trial and I could go on endlessly with all the breaches of procedure. Look who´s "morally gyrating" now."
Yes Michel, I agree, let's look. Apparently the French government, which has been so loud in its condemnation of American actions in Iraq and the detaining of illegal combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan, has decded that "it" likes the practice of detaining potential terrorists indefinitely, too. You know what they say, Michel -- imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
PARIS -- A court ordered the imprisonment of a Frenchman who was released this month from the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, his lawyer said Friday, three years after the man was caught trying to enter Afghanistan at the height of the U.S. war there.
Ridouane Khalid, 36, had been free but under judicial watch in France after returning home from Guantanamo on March 7. The court also ruled that another former Guantanamo detainee, 33-year-old Khaled ben Mustafa, must remain behind bars.
"The court decided to put Ridouane Khalid back in detention," said his attorney, Paul-Albert Iweins.
"In doing so, it adopted the prosecutor's position, which is that Guantanamo did not exist, that 3 1/2 years of American investigations under a regime condemned by the international community did not suffice," he added.
In a hearing Tuesday, the prosecution argued that both men pose a threat to public order and should be jailed while their cases are investigated by French authorities.
Khalid and ben Mustafa, among seven French nationals returned to France from Guantanamo, were captured in December 2001 as they tried to enter Afghanistan from Pakistan. Both are under investigation - one step short of being formally charged - for "criminal association with a terrorist enterprise."
Four of the French detainees returned to France in July and remain in custody on similar accusations.
Please see:
FRANCE ORDERS JAILING OF EX-GITMO PRISONER
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Mike in London wrote: "Phil- If you are justifying the invasion of Iraq because some Iraqis (probably) exhibit an affiliation for extremist Islamic terrorism, I'm sure that you would agree that Britain should have bombed the USA because of the support some of it's citizens and politicians showed for the IRA?"
Well, Mike, first of all, I didn't justify the Liberation of Iraq on the basis that some individual Iraqis exhibit an affection, support or affiliation for extremist Islamic terrorism. I don't hold an entire government responsible for the terrorist actions of a few of its individual citizens, or the actions of citizens of other countries, unless that government is actually not only aware of those terrorist actions but is actually also actively supporting and abetting those actions. When a government does that, then its actions cross a line demarcating acceptable behavior and veer into the definition of State-Sponsored Terrorism. I justified the Liberation of Iraq at least partially on the basis that the Saddamite regime was actively involved -- in fact, very, very deeply involved -- in supporting, promoting and abetting State-Sponsored Terrorism. And indeed, it was. It is a well-documented fact that the Saddamite regime gave millions of dollars to the families of Arab terrorists who had deliberately slaughtered Israeli civilians. That's active aiding and promotion of Terrorism. Saddam's funding of Arab Terrorism clearly rewarded terrorists who had murdered civilians, and quite likely led to the commission of other Terrorist acts that would not have occurred had the Terrorists not known that their families would benefit financially from the committing of those acts of Terrorism.
That a few individuals and politicans in the US showed support for the IRA is indeed deplorable, but once again, I don't hold an entire government responsible for the terrorist actions or terrorist-supporting views of a few of its individual citizens. That's not State-Sponsored or State-Supported Terrorism. To the best of my knowledge, the US government has never officially or unofficially supported the IRA; in fact, I think the US government still officially regards the IRA as a Terrorist group.I also believe that the US government has actively prosecuted and jailed individuals, including US citizens, who have been involved in trying to smuggle or funnel cash and/or weaponry to the IRA. If you have evidence to the contrary, by all means, please feel free to present it.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Mike in London wrote: "Or could it be you are a racist who cannot conceive of the lives of foreigners as having any worth?"
On the contrary, our Liberation of Iraq has SAVED the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who (quite rightly and with justification) feared being seized in the middle of the night by Saddam's secret police, being beaten and tortured, being murdered (sometimes in very gruesome ways), and ultimately ending up as unidentifiable clumps of bones in a mass grave reserved for opponents of Saddam Hussein's regime. The lives of those Iraqi Shi'ites, Kurds, Turkomen, dissidents and ordinary Iraqis have great worth, in my view.
Now, Mike, could it be that you are a Dictatorist and Saddam-lover who cannot conceive of the lives of people opposed to Saddam's regime as having any worth? Where was your concern for the welfare of people in Iraq when Saddam's secret police were murdering children? Certainly there are quite a few of your countrymen and women who seem to be sullenly angry at Saddam's having been deposed, and who seem willing to go to great lengths to lie, propagandize and claim that Saddam "wasn't a bad guy", that "Iraqis prefer living under Saddam's benevolent dictatorship" and other similar rubbish. The Guardian even had the audacity and dictator-loving gall to recently run an article entitled "Things were better under Saddam". If you care so much about the Iraqi people (as you claim to), then why are you so opposed to seeing them freed from a murderous dictatorship and able to choose their own leaders? For all of Europeans' claims to recognize how "unfortunate" life was under Saddam, it's clear that to Europeans, that "misfortune" was not sufficient for Europeans to justify actually "DOING DOMETHING" about it.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Mike in London wrote: "Furthermore, the fact that the USA has killed far more civilians that Saddam could have dreamed of killing all over the world by way of furthering it's own national interests, would mean you would agree with 'regime change' in the USA?"
That's the most absolutely outrageous rubbish and Lies I've ever heard. Kindly 'prove' your allegation, or else withdraw it.

Phil Karasick, Seattle, Washington, USA

Mike in London wrote: "The fact is the world is full of difficult problems and problem governments." Well, there's one less problem government in the world, now that Saddam Hussein is in jail awaiting trial, which is where he belongs.
Mike in London also wrote: " Blowing them up is not a solution for any government any more than it is for terrorists- it just shows a lack of imagination on behalf of those who swallow the propaganda whilst blinding themeselves to any aspect that doesn't make them feel good about their country/ cause (and, by extension, themeselves)."
Well, Mike, here's the situation: Saddam Hussein was a Very, Very VERY Bad Man. We wanted him to Go Away. He had to Go Away. He needed to Go Away. But he didn't want to Go Away. And the rest of the world was not willing to "make" him Go Away. Therefore, he wasn't going to Go Away, now or anytime soon. That's the problem right there, Mike. That's the problem in a nutshell. He wasn't going to Go Away.
Now, Mike, blowing up Saddam's government might not be a solution in "your" opinion. But it certainly is a perfectly valid solution in "my" opinion. And it certainly seems to be a perfectly valid solution in the opinion of the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Iraqis who were oppressed under this man's brutal and despotic rule for the last 25+ years. You claim that it's "not a solution for any government any more than it is for terrorists". But in this case, we've toppled a brutal regime that tortured and/or killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis over the last 25+ years. We got rid of Saddam. That was the solution, Mike. It sure looks like the solution to me. And it sure looks like the solution to all those millions of Iraqis who are overjoyed that Saddam Hussein is out of power. They don't want him back, Mike. They really don't.
Is it a solution that shows a lack of imagination? Oh, probably. Yeah, so what?!?!?? Do I care??? Nope. It worked. That's all that matters to me.
So, in conclusion, Mike: if you want to sit around the pub, polish off a few pints, and try to use your imagination to dream up some other, more creative and imaginative way to have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein (hollering out "Scotty! Lock transporters onto Saddam's coordinates and beam him directly to the brig!!", perhaps, or maybe summoning Harry Potter to "Magick" Saddam away)..... well, by all means, Mike, be my guest. And if and when you come up with a solution, please do let us know. In the meantime, we'll continue helping the new fledgling Iraq government establish itself, continue building democracy in Iraq, and continue helping the Iraqi people recover from the conflict and from the destructive 25-year legacy of Saddam Hussein's brutal rule.

Go to page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Page 10/12