A different perspective (long post)

[Variable]

I've tried to keep my mouth shut during this whole affair but I simply can't any longer. If I hadn't had this particular forum and it's current discussions burning a hole in the back of my mind all day as I tried to work I could, but it's getting to the point where I can no longer adequately concentrate for any length of time without these issues popping back up and driving me mad. I can only assume that the reason anyone is against this war is because they are ill informed. Certainly it makes sense not to trust everything that comes from western media, so I can see how you may be lacking in sufficient information. Here is where this post comes in. I believe, and if I'm wrong, chime in please, that I am the only Arabic linguist amongst our crew here. To lend a little credibility to what I'm about to present I'll have to give a little background. First and foremost I'm a United States Marine. Don't write this post off because of that, I'll only be presenting cold hard facts until the end, then I'll give my opinion. Secondly, I've spent the last 3 years learning how to speak read and understand Arabic and the associated cultures. 3 out of 4 members of my teaching team were Iraqi. The other was Egyptian. 3 years may not sound long, but I assure you that the program the Department of Defense has is far superior to any college in the world at present. I've worked with Iraqis, Egyptians, Syrians, Palestinians, Lebanese and Jordanians, to name a few. Whatever conclusions you may draw as to why the military would train linguists of any sort, keep them to yourself please, I won't comment on it. Back to the point. America and her allies are fighting a war against the regime of Saddam Hussein. So I'm going to give a few well known and some not-so well known pieces of information about this regime and its actions over the past few years. My intent is not to change anyones opinion on the war, merely to better inform you about why it is being fought. I read and listen to more arabic news than I do english. I have the luxury of understanding what AlJazeera and others broadcast without it being translated or edited by CNN or the BBC. Everything I'm about to say is confirmed not only by AlJazeera but CNN and the BBC, so you can trust that the facts are not distorted by bias in any way shape or form. If ultimately necessary I can furnish documents for everything here, but some of it will be in arabic so it wouldn't do much good.

During the first Gulf War Saddam Hussein set up torture and rape camps in Kuwait.

Since Saddam came to power elections have been held. The ballot has two options. You may vote For Saddam or Against Saddam. On the back of the ballot is where you fill out your name and address. If you do not fill out that portion the vote is invalid. If you vote against Saddam, you and your family are killed.

Shortly after the war ended two uprisings occurred in Iraq. First, the Shiite Muslims in the south held protests against the government. Second, the Kurds in the north began to launch a campaign with the goal of ending Saddam's reign. The Kurds managed to gain control of all of northern Iraq short of Baghdad itself. They called upon America to assist them in the final upset, but as popular opinion of the war had diminished we did nothing. Because of this Iraq broke the cease fire and used its Air Force to slaughter the Kurds, most of whom were forced to flee north across the mountains, where they were killed by the Turkish. The Shiites demonstrations were also similarly suppressed, which is why the UN enacted the no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq, which have been violated on a weekly basis since they were put in place.

To aid the people of Iraq after the first war we implemented a 'Food for Oil' exchange program. What was documented in BBC Arabic as well as AlJazeera but unfortunately never on western news stations was that several Iraqi generals were convicted of hoarding the food and selling it on the black market, as well as the fact that Iraq has on numerous occasions been caught trying to smuggle oil out of the country to sell on the free market. This means that not only were the Iraqi people being deprived of food, but also the potential revenue that legal oil trade might have brought in.

Saddam has two sons. As teenagers they were invited to the basement of one of his palaces and allowed to execute political prisoners. Udai has been exiled twice. Once for beating a man to death at a party for the First Lady of Egypt, and again for attempting to kill his brother by using an attack helicopter. The other is the head of Iraq's security forces. If Saddam were to die naturally the power would no doubt fall to one of them.

During the Kurdish and Shiite uprisings Saddam used crop dusters to attack them with chemical agents. This brought about the first round of UN inspections, which, contrary to popular belief, have been a continuous effort since 1991.

Iraq has been on the track of developing nuclear weapons for over a decade. When weapons inspectors first went in they found that they were within 3 years of having 'the bomb.' Subsequently they attempted to destroy all the labs, and the scientists for the most part defected to America.

Before the war the Iraqi dinar was worth 3 American dollars. After the war the dollar is worth 3000 dinars. In the face of this horrendous economy Saddam has ordered the burning of trenches filled with oil and the fields themselves, effectively wasting the only resource that could fund the country after the end of the war.

Today a member of the Fedayeen was interviewed on AlJazeera. The Fedayeen are a militia organized by Saddam who are not considered regular army. This enables them to fight but if killed in a conflict they can be claimed as "innocent civilians" I don't know if this has been broadcast here but this is what he said: "We will kill the American Invaders and we will kill all those who do not kill Americans."

Finally, there exists a document that anyone in the Armed Forces is familiar with. This is the Law of War. Put simply, it outlines what can and cannot be considered a target in wartime and what constitutes a 'fair fight.' It is accepted and followed by most every civilized country on earth. In the past week of fighting the Iraqis have violated the Law of War 4 times. They have placed military targets in the hearts of cities next to hospitals and Mosques, they have shot at parachuting troops while still in the air, they have launched ambush attacks while waving a flag of truce, and they have executed prisoners of war.

This ends the factual part of this post. Now its opinion time. If, in the light of this evidence you can still state firmly that you think what the Alliance is doing is wrong, you possess a depth of conviction inconceivable to me. If you think that this could have been avoided by diplomacy you are quite simply wrong. Diplomacy works against rational men and women. Even if the unlikely were to happen and we were able to disarm Saddam fully and leave, his regime would still be intact and not only would the Iraqis still be oppressed but he could simply begin developing his weapons again. If you oppose the war because you just plain don't like America I can accept that. If you think that America should not assume the role of Global Police I can understand where you are coming from, but I'm telling you that it would be a greater sin to allow things like this to happen in the world and sit idly by than it is to get militarily involved and tick a few people off. Its as simple as this. We all saw Spiderman. With great power comes great responsibility. The USA is the most powerful nation to ever walk the face of earth since the dawn of known existence. We are willing to commit our young men and women's lives to bring the freedoms we enjoy and take for granted to other nations. And if you're concerned about those men and women fighting over there, don't worry about them. America's military is 100% voluntary. There is not a single fighting man out there who did not swear his life in an oath to God and Country. We know that our line of work may someday require us to lay down our lives and we accept it. Self preservation is something in the far corner of your mind, everything else is committed to the greater good, or at least to securing the lives or your comrades in arms. If you don't like the war because you think Bush is a jackass I don't know what to say. I commend Bush and Blair for standing their ground in front of opposition and implementing what must be done on their own. Since it began as just our two countries now over 54 nations have given their support either on the field or off.

Thats about all I have. I needed to get this off my chest. Just remember, while you enjoy the freedom of protesting an 'unjust' war and insulting world leaders, that if you were an Iraqi and you even muttered disagreement with Saddam and his regime, you and your family would be taken in the night and never heard from again.

Variable out.

[XMEN Ashaman DTM]

Iraq has been on the track of developing nuclear weapons for over a decade. When weapons inspectors first went in they found that they were within 3 years of having 'the bomb.' Subsequently they attempted to destroy all the labs, and the scientists for the most part defected to America.

Actually it's over two decades. The program was slowed when Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear power plant in 1981.

[Gambit]

Thank you for posting that, Var.

[Variable]

Asha: I make it a point not to attempt to knowledgebly talk on a subject that happened before I was alive. Thanks for the input, old man ;)

Funny how things never come out quite as well as you compose them in your head all day. For instance, I forgot that fact that he had both his sons-in-law executed. But whatever. I think enough is there as it is.

[Aluscia]

Yes, thank you. I'm sorry that I'm so critical of American influence in world politics, but I firmly believe, just as firmly as I believe in God, that war is never the answer, no matter how depraved or out of control a leader may be. This war will destroy more lives than Saddam ever could on his own, and as long as it drags on more people will die.

[Gambit]

...I firmly believe, just as firmly as I believe in God, that war is never the answer, no matter how depraved or out of control a leader may be.

Huh? How about Hitler? Anyone here think it would have been a good idea to lie down and let him conquer Europe? Anyone here think we should have just brushed aside Pearl Harbor, and let the Japanese eventually invade California?

If you believe in God, how about those times that God told the Israelites to go fight for possession of the land, or defend themselves, or slaughter idolaters or whatever?

[Aluscia]

Defense. Not fighting a war for someone else, not invading another territory because of suspected wrongs, but defense against a force out of control.

The God I believe in is one of infinite love, not a God of vengeance. There is only one commandment according to my God, to love one another as one loves himself.

[XMEN Ashaman DTM]

Hey, Variable, did you know someone named Casey Helmer when you were in Monterey? (I presume that's where you were, correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that's the only language school for the services.)
Oh and Casey is one of my best friends. He learned Vietnamese, and then got stationed in Hawaii. Heh. He is also Navy, and just re-enlisted. He'll be going back to Monterey to learn another language.

[Gambit]

...that war is never the answer, no matter how depraved or out of control a leader may be.

Defense. Not fighting a war for someone else, not invading another territory because of suspected wrongs, but defense against a force out of control.

Firstly, aren't you contradicting yourself?

Secondly, If you permit war as a defense, do you permit war in defense of an ally? (Such as Germany takes France, friends of France attack Germany)

If war is only fought for defense, how many times may an aggressor invade a neighbor, to be fought back to its own borders and told not to do it again? How long will it take for the aggressor to try a different kind of aggression?

And finally, what would YOU have done if you were the President of the United States on September 11?

[Variable]

I don't think I've ever met him, and my wife doesn't recall the name either. I really only knew the folks in the so called Big 5 of languages: Arabic, Russian, Korean, Chinese and Spanish. i knew a few Persian Farsi and a few Hebrew lings. Sorry bud, havn't had the pleasure.

[Aluscia]

A - The problem with looking at World War II as an example is that it is largely (if not solely) a product of World War I imperialism. Hitler wouldn't have existed if the Treaty of Versailles (a document all about greed and removal of sovereignty) hadn't been written. I guess what I'm trying to say is that WWII was almost inevitable, because England and France allowed Germany to be punished for all the accumulated sins of the war. This isn't the case this time. The US is attacking a soverign state because it believes that its leader doesn't have the right to rule. They are dictating instead that the nation should be thrown into turmoil in hopes of having some living people left to inherit the land and begin a "democracy," according to US influence. So, by and large, comparing WWII to this war is like comparing Watermelons to Cherries.

B - How about disarming the nation and encouraging them to peace by giving them international support? You can only take so much away before you kill any hopes of kindness or fairness. It's obvious that embargos only hurt the poor. How is this war going to be any different? If a nation doesn't have any need to conquer, then war can be avoided altogether, can't it? It's just a matter of removing the need to conquer. Yes, Saddam needs to be cast down. Yes, he should have been removed after the last war. However, this war is going to hurt everyone else in that nation before hurting Saddam. He'll make sure of it.

C - (Although unrelated, as I support the global anti-terrorism work) If I were the President of the United States after September 11th, I would have done the same thing with Al-Qaida that has been done. I would have worked at beefing up my own country's defense, and I would have worked on sweetening my international rapport, and worked on building more bridges with the Islamic community to avoid the kind of sentimentality that lead up to the attack. If it were known that the US was an ally to Islamic people around the world, then it would be difficult for extremist groups to operate because the fringes would be at least partially fond of them.

As I have stated since Bush was elected, his international policies have made enemies of a lot of people. While there's no way to tell what could have been avoided if he were even half the international man Clinton was (and the amount of peace that we've lived through since the Gulf war is a testament to that), I do know that nothing that has happened in Bush's reign has been helped by his lack of worldliness.

I'm sorry that I don't support a war. I'm sorry that it's easier to defend a war when your nation has the most powerful army in the world. I refuse, however, to be swayed by American jingoism, especially relating to this war, when I believe in peace and love, in the working out of problems by talking and compromising, as opposed to demanding and conquering. I bow out of this forum now. I'm tired of being the only one who doesn't support this war, or any for that matter.

[Gambit]

Comes back to arguing politics among friends, doesn't it? :(

I would like you (and others whom I argue with online) that no matter how much I may attack the issues or your arguments, that's all it is - not an attack or dimunation of you personally. I thank you for keeping your statements free of flame and the like.

Rogue often tells me I'd argue with a brick.

Having said all that, I'll still pick this up with anyone willing. ;)

[Variable]

I'd be willing however I don't think you and I have much to argue on.

Lets shift the topic slightly. When all is said and done, what do you think we should do with Iraq? Personally the high minded goals of freeing the nation are all well and good, but I still say to the victors go the spoils. If we are able to conquer a country I say make it the 51st state. The economic and tactical value of having a landmass of that size in that part of the world cannot be underestimated.

[Gambit]

OOohhh... I'll have to disagree with you on that one. About as far as I'd be willing to go would be to have Iraq pay back the cost of the war, and that'd most likely be stretching realistic expectations.

I think we need to show that we mean what we say. To invade and set up shop would not only inflame ALL the muslim countries, it would also unite most of the western world against us. We'd truly become the "American aggressors" in that case, and no matter how good we were to its citizens.

Yes, we're the most powerful country on the planet. But enough mice can bring down the cat. It'd be a bad move from an honorable standpoint, a diplomatic standpoint, and even a Machiavellan standpoint. Militarily, the value would be mixed. Yes, it'd be useful to have permanent bases and facilities in the region. But the long term cost (dollars and lives) in increased deployments in other areas as well as that region might not be worth it.

[KitZune]

This thread...
and many like it (Bush's need for wwIII for instance)
Should *NOT* be in this forum.

Either put it in the bitch pit or forget it all together. It's never worth arguing something that you cannot win. No matter what *WE* say here, nothing in the war is going to change.

Politics can kill friendships, and it's doing so. I suggest we find other things to post about, even in the face of wars... and if you really feel the need to post controversial topics, put it in the forum that was created for that purpose and make sure to state that it is controversy.

I request that Gryphon move these threads to their appropriate location, if not get rid of them.

I refuse to get into the debate because I'm a depressed homocidal trans-gendered individual... and obviously it will be bad to get me involved in such a debate. Now being that I have the resolve to NOT comment on this thread (or others like it) Doesn't mean that everyone does. Keep in mind that although debates may be fun for some... it can (more commonly) be destructive if not completely defeating to others. I personally know of a few people who are becoming deperessed over this war... and coming here to talk about it is not helping.

Anyways... discuss what you want to, I can't moderate that.
I'm only requesting.

[XMEN Ashaman DTM]

On Iraq: I think we should rebuild it like we did with Japan. There will be an occupation, there is no doubt about that. We won't turn our backs on the country, only to turn around and see a regime hostile to the US be put in place.
In regards to the military significance: it's great. We'll definitely have at least one base there. The Kuwaiti's are friendly enough with us that they allow us to use their land and airspace pretty much whenever we want. But they could still deny us that because they are a soveriegn nation. We would control Iraq for a few years at least, because they would require policing and protection.

In the meantime, Iraq poses a unique opportunity to show the muslim world what the US is like. Unless there are large elements that won't believe what they see when they visit Iraq.



In regards to you Laur, I have to say that I somewhat admire your conviction in pacifism. BUT! I'd also like to point out that as long as there are people like Saddam Hussein, who will take what they want when they can, there can't be a peaceful solution.

My question to you is: How can Saddam's regime fail through pacifism?

Saddam poses a direct threat to the US in several ways (turning the muslim world against us with nasty propoganda, oil, a desire to acquire nuclear weapons, and by drawing support of muslims that already hate us even though Saddam is a false muslim, and doing things to his own people while the rest of the world stands by). Saddam would have conquered the middle east if he could, and if the rest of the world did not step in. He went after Iran, and got into a stalemate, he launched attacks at Israel, invaded Kuwait and made of with women and money. He is the kind of person that eliminated any and all political threats when he started out.

We are spoiled here in the states and in Canada; especially compared to what goes on in other parts of the world. I admire president Bush for trying to fix many wrongs. (But that's probably a spin on the fact that the US feels threatened and is being proactive in its defense, and Bush's own morals showing.) But I have to agree that the way that Bush does foreign policy is scary and at times idiotic.

[Variable]

Well of course it would never work. That'd just be nice. I think we should do the same thing with Canada and Mexico, it doesn't mean we will or should. I'm a big fan of imperialism, thats all. Whatever the case, there will no doubt be a 'friendly' government set in place with advisors from several of the allied nations.

I think in the end I don't really care what the empires are. I'd like to see a unified Europe, its getting close to that. i'd like the Americas to coalesce into something greater, and I'd like to see some sort of actual unity in the Middle East and Africa. I think mankind is long past its need for governments, dictators and whatnot. Its time to move on to something bigger. once we can put petty differences behind us we'll be better for it. The way I see it some nations can come together peacefully the way Europe has, but two bit dictatorships or mock democracies will have to be pushed.

[XMEN Ashaman DTM]

Or kicked in the nads and beaten severely. But that's just my opinion. ;)

[Xenocidez66]

Well Variable I was there in 91. (U.S. Airforce) and we were all stuned when it ended and we were outraged when there was no help for the uprisings in the North and South. I do agree with you. I am not nessaraly for this action but I don't see any other way. Its not like he was going to disarm on his own or leave power. Its a nessary evil and has to be done,

Laurelin, I have always enjoyed reading your posts and felt the same way in most cases. Except this one. This has to be done, one way or another this homicidle loon needs to go. God won't help. Only a bullet or 2,000lb bomb or 5,000lb GBU28 will fix the problem. In this case the following saying rings true.

Any problem can be fixed with the proper application on high explosives. Sadam needs to go. Any way possible.

If anyone questions the truth of Variable's first post in this thread I will tell you its all true, that and much more.

[Aluscia]

True Pacifism would win. Do you see the muslim world trying to kill people in Germany? France? By that, I mean above and beyond what little sects already exist in all free countries of the world. If the US went into situations with open-handed pacifism, offered a Marshall plan in exchange for disarmament, then I think the results would end up the same, minus any casualties caused by this conflict. Especially if the world chose to be the Police in Iraq, if the world chose to help point the way to peace, instead of superpowers throwing their weight around and ignoring mass appeals. Those are my convictions.

[Gambit]

How well does pacifism work on high school bullies? Saddam never grew up. His entire political career has been based on fear and intimidation.

You assume that Saddam is reasonable. Reasonable people don't set up rape camps. Reasonable people don't shoot from under a flag of truce.

The world had twelve years to decide to be police, or to find a peaceful solution. They didn't.

[Xenocidez66]

Laurelin you said "Especially if the world chose to be the Police in Iraq," Well the world had its chance. The UN fu**ed it up plain and simple. Now someone is doing something about it. Pacifism admitedly has its place. But this wasen't the time. It is to bad that it came to this but as I have said before. Bush Sr. messed it up in 91 and Jr. is covering dads a**. Sadam still HAS to go. One way or another, and in this case he will. Hopefully in a fireball

[Stang]

Im not going to get involved in this thread cuz like Kit says it can ruin friendships. You all have held your own though I have to say and have powerful beliefs, never let that go. And everyone is doing it without going directly to bash anyone for their beliefs. I Thank You all for doing that and keeping this civil.

I just want to say to Laurelin a few back you were talking about how we will be killing more Iraq innocent people than Saddam has ever. If you look how long Saddam has been in power Im sure he has killed 2 times more of his own people than we ever will. Hes just a sick man.

I totally see where you are coming from though Laurelin and you keep fighting for what YOU believe girl! Nobody is ever going to agree on this issue.

Now for ME TO POOP ON YOU!!! :touchmonk (a little lightining up mood :))

[XMEN Ashaman DTM]

I heard an Iraqi say that Saddam is the kind of man that has the kind of people that takes whole families away at night, or cousins, or fathers and brothers, only they never return. He's also the kind of man that orderd an entire city of people be wiped out with mustard gas (not a pretty way to go!), becuase they didn't like having a dictator. This city had men, women, children, crippled, old, young and strong. All of them were gone in a few minutes.

Though I'll admit that removing Saddam is the goal of the war. It's not entirely because of his practices on his people. It's because the US has information that leads them to know that Saddam's regime is a direct threat to the US. And that alone is enough to remove him. It's not about American imperalism, or oil, or Iraqi people, or any of that.

I'm not sure that I've said this before, but I think that pacifism is a great belief. But one that can easily be abused by those that don't believe in it, or those that would take advantage of pacifists. Therefore, there has to be those that protect the pacifists. Otherwise, they will be slaughtered and the world will forget pacifism. That's a bleak picture, but it's the end result if there are those that will take advantage of a pacifist's inaction.

[Variable]

And if you're a pacifist and you are forced to kill a man with a spear because he kidnapped your sister you can become Aiel. And that'd be just super.


That one's for you Asha ;)

[XMEN Ashaman DTM]

:lol

Funny that you mention that. The Aiel think the Tuatha'an are The Lost Ones. While the Tuatha'an think the Aiel are The Lost Ones. Interesting.

[Variable]

Yes indeed it is. Though this is really getting off the topic of the post I have to ask...did it ever go into why the Tuatha'an were pacifists? Or did it only go back to the Great Bore? I can't recall.

[XMEN Ashaman DTM]

It didn't go into why. Only that their beliefs were so strong that 10,000 Aiel stood singing to an insane male Aes Sedai as he destroyed them one by one, letting the last one sing for several hours before destroying him and himself.

I suspect that the world had forgotten war and there was no need for violence. Thus there was room for the Way of the Leaf to grow.


It's funny (weird, not haha), but I think of those Aiel that followed the Way as children. Not because they were pacifists, but because they could not defend themselves against a violent person. They were the Way. It wasn't a belief, religion, or anything like that. They believed that they were defined by the Way, and lived accordingly. Kind of like how I believe that I am an American... not becaue I have American beliefs, but because my beliefs make me American.

At least that's what I've found from my reading.


The Aiel are as you described. And what I said above is found in the same chapter as your description. ;)
Although one of the Forsaken said something about the Aiel. Something like, "Who would have imagined?" That leads me to believe that the Aiel were always pacifists.

[Gambit]

The Aiel were the servants of the ancient Aes Sedai. Complete non-combantants. Before the breaking, there was advanced technology as well as the Power, and while there were some police types, there hadn't been a real war for quite a while. Then someone drilled the Bore...

You can find the most descriptive sections in the part where Rand is getting the dragons on his arms, in that city in the desert.

But anyway, the Aiel were incredibly, completely peaceful and devoted to serving the Aes Sedai.

[Atheist]

Umm... Gambit, I have an issue with what you say about making Iraqis pay for the war. This isn't *their* war per se, as both you and Var have mentioned. This is a war against an "evil" regime, one that kills its own people. This is a war against Mr. Hussein and his family personally (I'll include the people he actually takes care of as his family, generals and whatnot). Making the people, and the new government pay for a war that the US started is like saving a child from an abusive parent and then make that child pay you for it after all is said and done.

Assuming, of course, that you guys actually believe that the US is doing this out of the good of it's... collective heart.

[Atheist]

Ohh.. Wow, there was a whole extra page that I didn't read. Urgh.. I'm so tired.

:P

Sorry, umm.. I don't know if what I said is even valid anymore. But I'll leave it up there.

[Gambit]

So the population of Iraq has no responsibility for allowing Saddam to get where he is and letting him stay there?

Though I think they do have *some*, that's not really my point. Let me elaborate here.

After we go in there and bomb things like we have, we do have an obligation (IMHO) to at least rebuild the things we destroy. But look what we did for Germany and Japan after WW2! Losing to us was the best thing that ever happened to them, economically anyway. If we do a similar thing here and usher in an age of prosperity for the populace, I wouldn't think it unfair to get a portion of that back, considering that we'll pay the lion's share of not only the war but likely the rebuilding. Demanding that portion, however, would be a bad idea, which is why I said that's about as far as I'd be willing to go. :)

[Atheist]

Japan, definitely... Germany? Probably.

The US is getting a lot out of this war. Access to oil fields, for instance. Reconstruction rights (hey.. gotta boost the economy some how, and things around here are pretty stagnant).

Back to what you said about the people being somewhat responsible... maybe.

Here's a direct quote from what Var said:

Shortly after the war ended two uprisings occurred in Iraq. First, the Shiite Muslims in the south held protests against the government. Second, the Kurds in the north began to launch a campaign with the goal of ending Saddam's reign. The Kurds managed to gain control of all of northern Iraq short of Baghdad itself. They called upon America to assist them in the final upset, but as popular opinion of the war had diminished we did nothing. Because of this Iraq broke the cease fire and used its Air Force to slaughter the Kurds, most of whom were forced to flee north across the mountains, where they were killed by the Turkish. The Shiites demonstrations were also similarly suppressed, which is why the UN enacted the no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq, which have been violated on a weekly basis since they were put in place.


What Var says is the definite truth, and in fact, it seems like the US is probably *MOST* responsible for the fact that Sadam is a) still in power, and b) so well armed. The Iran-Iraq war. Who fed the Iraq regime weapons? Of course this is in answer the the growing anti-US sentiment that Iran was nurturing. Then the Russians fed Iran weapons and it escalated from there. While it might have been in their best interests back then to support one harsh and evil regime over another, it still comes back and bites the US in the ass. The in 1991, US had the option to keep going and finish the job, free the kurds, the iraqis all at once. But didn't. US encouraged the Kurds to rise up, and then abandonned them because of lack of popular support (directly from Var, and other sources). So come on. Don't tell me it's the fault of the people. Do you really think they're going to trust the US after that? I wouldn't. Be rational. But then again, this isn't a matter of trusting the US, this is about standing up to Mr. Hussein.

Another wonderful quote straight from Var's magical fingers (no sarcasm intended):

Since Saddam came to power elections have been held. The ballot has two options. You may vote For Saddam or Against Saddam. On the back of the ballot is where you fill out your name and address. If you do not fill out that portion the vote is invalid. If you vote against Saddam, you and your family are killed.

And so, voting against the regime would be life threatening. As a cohesive force, maybe the people could have stood up. But there's no evidence anywhere to suggest that they are a particularily cohesive people.

Sadam used CHEMICAL weapons against the protesting kurds. CHEMICAL weapons! Dude, would you protest under those conditions? *laughs*

It's one thing to say that the government is evil, but it's another to say that it's the peoples fault.

Anyways, I'm tired and I need some sleep. Just some thoughts.

[Variable]

To interject a little something:

They're not paying for the war . That is to say, they won't be compensating us for depleted uranium shells and gas and whatnot. I think the general terms of the deal are that we are going to spend a metric butt ton of money to put them back together again, and quite probably much better off than they were before, and we'll get oil for it since their currency is a total joke on the world market.

If you think about it it's actually a pretty good deal. Throughout history the victors of war have either claimed the country or decimated the population and left it to smolder when they moved on. We're reestablishing their economy, provideding better health care and education, and a stable government. I think everyone can agree that we deserve a little of that proverbial 'fat cash' considering that along with Britain and to a lesser extent, Australia, we're pretty much the only people out there on the field trying to do this for them.

[Stang]

Rebuild? The things they are taking down are Saddams places, why rebuild that stuff? Take down that big arm while your at it, Im sure they'd love that :D. Yes rebuild the citizens stuff that we destroyed by accident but not anything that Saddam built that would be like letting a molester live next door to his victim and rubbing it in their faces.

I hope thats what you mean and not rebuild everything.

[XMEN Ashaman DTM]

Nope. Rebuild everything.


The only reason that Saddam had a place there in Iraq, is because the people and country were not strong to begin with. If we rebuild it (and invest in the country), then the citizens will be better off and will actually love Americans for a change. I'm talking all of them, not just those not part of the militia or army.

Gotta start making good somewhere in the middle east.

[Gambit]

Very good point about America being responsible for the amount of power available to Saddam, Ath, and of course the way we backed out last time always stings!

But Saddam didn't personally use those chemical weapons, did he? Someone develops them, someone builds them, someone ships them, someone deploys them. There's a lot of choices in there. True, if you're caught, the penalties would be severe. It would have taken a lot of careful manuvering and planning to successfully overthrow him from within. So instead, some people defected, or otherwise fled the country. Some took advantage of the situation so they could be a bully for a while.

But how'd Saddam get there? By brute force and intimidation, mostly, but still people decided to support or follow him. He was a hit man who got into politics! The choices necessary to stop him early would have been easier to make.

Obviously, no individual younger than his presidency bears responsibility for his ascendency, and the vast majority of the population didn't put him there either.

But the nation as a whole DOES have responsibility. If I elect a representative who votes against a proposed law I want, am I responsible for that decision? Partly. If I live in a country that does NOT have a representative government, and I continue to go about my daily life and pay my taxes, am I responsible for the decisions of that government? Partly. I could, instead, leave the country, civilly disobey the laws, spark a revolt, or any number of other things to hinder or even bring down this government if it does things I don't like. I don't say it would be easy. It sure wasn't easy for Washington, Jefferson, and company to rise up against their king, but they did it anyway and so today we can, without cost, vote out leaders we don't like. But it did cost someone, somewhere. "...our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor..."

Analyzing these issues always makes me awfully glad to be an American!

Oh, and Stang, a lot of the stuff we'll HAVE to rebuild is infrastructure. Like the phone systems, television facilities, and such that we destroyed.

[Stang]

Oh I know about that stuff of course and it should.

[XMEN Ashaman DTM]

I'd have to disagree Gambit. Of course the entire nation could have risen up against Saddam, but those that did try to rise up were utterly and completely destroyed. So the people lost their will to fight. Think how paranoid you'd be if someone was constantly watching you, and you couldn't tell who they were. So that when you did do a civil disobediance thing, you were thrown in jail or executed. I can't believe that it would be possible for the people of Iraq to rise up against Saddam. Most wouldn't have the money to leave the country. And if they did, they'd probably have their entire family killed.

Much of that brutality is an incentive for the people to stay under their government. Heck, if you just say what they want you to say you can have an okay life there. But if you rise up, your family is killed. There really isn't a dilema because self preservation takes over since being against Saddam is a hopeless stance.

[Gambit]

Much of that brutality is an incentive for the people to stay under their government. Heck, if you just say what they want you to say you can have an okay life there. But if you rise up, your family is killed.

Exactly. The people decided they'd rather live under his rule than be caught doing anything about it. Freedom as a nation just wasn't worth the cost to them individually.

It wouldn't have taken the whole nation to revolt, but it would have taken more than one or two people. It would have had to include some military, probably high-ranking, who would be very dangerous to recruit. I did say it wouldn't be easy. It would be pretty bloody. But it could have happened, IF they'd decided it was worth it and worked together.

[Variable]

I keep adding little pieces:

Gambino, you couldn't have just left. He was not allowing his people to leave the country. If it were that easy, his entire population would have gone to Syria or Turkey or Saudi Arabia. And the protests thing is out. It would have had to have been a military coup, and he controlled the military. Outside involvement was necessary, and no one had the stones or the desire to go in and risk their own hides until now.

So should the Iraqi people have to have a guilty concience when all is said and done? I don't think so. They people that were responsible will be put to trial and no doubt to death. Everyone else will get a new lease on life.