A different perspective (long post)

[Atheist]

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



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 . 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.