Originally posted by Fishermage Dictatorships are not legitimate countries. Any country or any individual for that that matter has every right to remove any dictator from power, morally speaking. All free countries should be spreading freedom throughout the world. Pity so many are also moral cowards. It wasn't just America that did this -- we only led this. Where is the "empire?" I see us pulling out, as promised.
Of course dictatorships are not legitimate countries, presidents and prime ministers are not legitimate countries either. They are people, governments. You argue apples and oranges.
A dictatorship is just as legitimate a government as a republic, democracy, theocracy, or oligarchy. Each of these forms of government holds power through the will of the people. No dictator controls his country single handed, he/she forms coalitions to enjoy the support of enough of the populace to retain power.
Governments are not controlled by one person. George W Bush does not control the United States and enjoy the support from 100% of the population. He holds his control based on the support of the Republican Party, a coalition of Republican voters, and a coalition of the Republican Congress.
Saddam enjoyed his position through the support of the Sunni Iraqis. Had it not been Saddam, it would have been another Sunni, possibly from the military. Primarily because a Kurd could not form a coalition to retain power in the country, and the Shiites were/are poorly positioned to govern.
To paraphrase Ghandi...."There go my people, I must hurry to get in front of them, for I am their leader".
I other words you do not believe in our declaration of Independence. If the people are kept in check under a reign of terror, it is the will of the people that they have done so -- if exiles are begging to end the rape of their families -- F'em, they want it like that.
Once again you are comparing apples and oranges. The Declaration of Independance does not call for a foreign nation to initiate hostile action against another nation for the purpose of regime change.
The Declaration of Independance does recognize the right of a people to rise up against their OWN government.
That is why French interferance in the revolution was delayed. That is why foreign intervention in many revolutions is delayed. To determine whether the minority seeking to overthrow their government represent the will of the majority and have just cause.
Under your scenario, we should be liberating Mindinoa from the Phillipines, the Basques from Spain, and the Palestininans from Israel, invading Zimbabwe, and every country in which a minority of the populace does not support their own government.
Just remember as I have stated MANY times, I am much more in agreement with the idea that the Iraq war may not have been the wisest choice of action to fight the Jihad -- however, also remember that this thread was mostly about people claiming we were morally wrong for the war. Those are completely different issues. Now we are veering into an area where I am no longer in total disagreement with those who are against the war, and I certainly realize that it is a complicated issue and people can differ on it reasonably. Not so the moral argument.
The problem with the Iraq war is that Iraq/Saddam was not engaged in the Jihad. Iraq/Saddam did not attack the World Trade Center. Iraq/Saddam was not fundamentalist Islam.
As I seem to recall, the war with fundamentalist Islam was with the Sunnis in Afghanistan. Bin Laden was harbored by the Taliban. Somewhere along the line this objective was lost, and Saddam/Iraq became the war against terrorism, the war against WMDs, then the war to liberate Iraq.
Then the motive jumped to the "Axis of Evil" a nice spin that left the Shiite Iranians wondering what happened. You see, Iran was not radical fundamentalist Islam, they were a target of radical fundamentalist Islam. Just as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, and the rest of the legitimate governments of the Muslim world are a target of fundamentalist Islam.
Before they come for you and yours, they want to unite them and theirs. We helped them in Iraq by toppling a government and creating a power vacuum.
The motives in Iraq were always fuzzy, as was the Wolkowicz/Rumsfeld post war plan.
No wonder he threw shoes.
Saddam was in clear violation of the terms of his surrender, he has openly decalred allegiance with teh Jihad (event though THEY thought he was socialist, secular garbage), and he was a clear convenient, strategically placed target -- the reasons we invaded were strategic, not moral.
We also created a honey trap, and it has worked. they flooded into the country, and we humiliated them. Exactly what we needed to do.
We have also proved that we could do something the jihad can not do -- end a tyranny and create a better place for Muslims. The Jihad have NOT done that -- we have.
Ask the Kurds how they feel about us -- there's an untold story for ya.
In the long run it will prove to have been wise in many ways. Watch. See you in two decades when you see.
The end of active hostilities
A peace conference was held in Iraqi territory occupied by the coalition. At the conference, Iraq won the approval of the use of armed helicopters on their side of the temporary border, ostensibly for government transit due to the damage done to civilian transportation. Soon after, these helicopters, and much of the Iraqi armed forces, were refocused toward fighting against a Shiite uprising in the south. The rebellions were encouraged on 2 February 1991 by a broadcast on CIA run radio station The Voice of Free Iraq broadcasting out of Saudi Arabia. The Arabic service of the Voice of America supported the uprising by stating that the rebellion was large and that they soon would be liberated from Hussein.[32]
In the North, Kurdish leaders took heart in American statements that they would support an uprising and began fighting, in the hopes of triggering a coup. However, when no American support was forthcoming, Iraqi generals remained loyal and brutally crushed the Kurdish troops. Millions of Kurds fled across the mountains to Kurdish areas of Turkey and Iran. These incidents would later result in no-fly zones being established in both the North and the South of Iraq. In Kuwait, the Emir was restored and suspected Iraqi collaborators were repressed. Eventually, over 400,000 people were expelled from the country, including a large number of Palestinians (due to their support of and collaboration with Hussein).
There was some criticism of the Bush administration for its decision to allow Saddam Hussein to remain in power, rather than pushing on to capture Baghdad and overthrowing his government. In their co-written 1998 book, A World Transformed, Bush and Brent Scowcroft argued that such a course would have fractured the alliance and would have had many unnecessary political and human costs associated with it.
In 1992, the United States Secretary of Defense during the war, Dick Cheney, made the same point:
I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home. And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.[33]
Instead of greater involvement of its own military, the United States hoped that Saddam Hussein would be overthrown in an internal coup d'état. The Central Intelligence Agency used its assets in Iraq to organize a revolt, but the Iraqi government defeated the effort.
On March 10, 1991, Operation Desert Storm began to move 540,000 American troops out of the Persian Gulf.
Explain why you believe there was a surrender document signed, and what provisions of this alledged surrendar document Saddam violated.
I also find it interesting that the first Gulf War was fought by a coalition, yet the United States took it unilaterally upon itself to determine that Iraq must be invaded, rather than wait for coalition support. Maybe George Herbet Walker Bush was just better at consensus building than George W Bush?
In regard to your "honey trap" and all the rest analogy, why couldn't that have been accomplished in Afghanistan? Also, it appears you are advocating the destruction through continual warfare of a sovereign country, to include deaths of the populace, as the legitimate strategy of the Iraq War, not "liberation" of a people from a dictator as you continually say.
I will say again, no wonder that Iraqi reporter threw his shoes.
Just remember as I have stated MANY times, I am much more in agreement with the idea that the Iraq war may not have been the wisest choice of action to fight the Jihad -- however, also remember that this thread was mostly about people claiming we were morally wrong for the war. Those are completely different issues. Now we are veering into an area where I am no longer in total disagreement with those who are against the war, and I certainly realize that it is a complicated issue and people can differ on it reasonably. Not so the moral argument.
The problem with the Iraq war is that Iraq/Saddam was not engaged in the Jihad. Iraq/Saddam did not attack the World Trade Center. Iraq/Saddam was not fundamentalist Islam.
As I seem to recall, the war with fundamentalist Islam was with the Sunnis in Afghanistan. Bin Laden was harbored by the Taliban. Somewhere along the line this objective was lost, and Saddam/Iraq became the war against terrorism, the war against WMDs, then the war to liberate Iraq.
Then the motive jumped to the "Axis of Evil" a nice spin that left the Shiite Iranians wondering what happened. You see, Iran was not radical fundamentalist Islam, they were a target of radical fundamentalist Islam. Just as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, and the rest of the legitimate governments of the Muslim world are a target of fundamentalist Islam.
Before they come for you and yours, they want to unite them and theirs. We helped them in Iraq by toppling a government and creating a power vacuum.
The motives in Iraq were always fuzzy, as was the Wolkowicz/Rumsfeld post war plan.
No wonder he threw shoes.
Saddam was in clear violation of the terms of his surrender, he has openly decalred allegiance with teh Jihad (event though THEY thought he was socialist, secular garbage), and he was a clear convenient, strategically placed target -- the reasons we invaded were strategic, not moral.
We also created a honey trap, and it has worked. they flooded into the country, and we humiliated them. Exactly what we needed to do.
We have also proved that we could do something the jihad can not do -- end a tyranny and create a better place for Muslims. The Jihad have NOT done that -- we have.
Ask the Kurds how they feel about us -- there's an untold story for ya.
In the long run it will prove to have been wise in many ways. Watch. See you in two decades when you see.
Honey trap LOL,Humiliated them,HAHA,so true its huge.
Sweden in deep problems they have alot more to worry about than "US" thats for-sure.Short video about the Sweden...the English starts about 1 minute into the video.
Iraq has 67 billion on had in cash,satellite on every roof,a theocracy on their border trying to destroy there nation,mainly because its threating their power base. The number of Democrcys is growing.We are under a UN mandate, this why the vote is needed to be able to stay with troops,the UN mandate ends next month.
Hmmm from that Video, and taking our friend's advice, it is time for the Swedes to pull out of Sweden.
I got as far as the 90% unemployment rate for Muslim immigrants. I think I can see where the problem lies......
As for Frodus comment that it is all too funny that we humiliated the Iraqi people in the process, yea, I'm sure the Iraqi people are just having barrel of laughs.
Interestingly, when I look in the backgrounds of the news stories coming out of Iraq, I have never seen a satellite on every roof. I do see the living conditions in Sadr City though, and note that there are still continuous problems with power and fresh water infrasturucture distribution.
Originally posted by Fishermage Dictatorships are not legitimate countries. Any country or any individual for that that matter has every right to remove any dictator from power, morally speaking. All free countries should be spreading freedom throughout the world. Pity so many are also moral cowards. It wasn't just America that did this -- we only led this. Where is the "empire?" I see us pulling out, as promised.
Of course dictatorships are not legitimate countries, presidents and prime ministers are not legitimate countries either. They are people, governments. You argue apples and oranges.
A dictatorship is just as legitimate a government as a republic, democracy, theocracy, or oligarchy. Each of these forms of government holds power through the will of the people. No dictator controls his country single handed, he/she forms coalitions to enjoy the support of enough of the populace to retain power.
Governments are not controlled by one person. George W Bush does not control the United States and enjoy the support from 100% of the population. He holds his control based on the support of the Republican Party, a coalition of Republican voters, and a coalition of the Republican Congress.
Saddam enjoyed his position through the support of the Sunni Iraqis. Had it not been Saddam, it would have been another Sunni, possibly from the military. Primarily because a Kurd could not form a coalition to retain power in the country, and the Shiites were/are poorly positioned to govern.
To paraphrase Ghandi...."There go my people, I must hurry to get in front of them, for I am their leader".
I other words you do not believe in our declaration of Independence. If the people are kept in check under a reign of terror, it is the will of the people that they have done so -- if exiles are begging to end the rape of their families -- F'em, they want it like that.
Once again you are comparing apples and oranges. The Declaration of Independance does not call for a foreign nation to initiate hostile action against another nation for the purpose of regime change.
The Declaration of Independance does recognize the right of a people to rise up against their OWN government.
That is why French interferance in the revolution was delayed. That is why foreign intervention in many revolutions is delayed. To determine whether the minority seeking to overthrow their government represent the will of the majority and have just cause.
Under your scenario, we should be liberating Mindinoa from the Phillipines, the Basques from Spain, and the Palestininans from Israel, invading Zimbabwe, and every country in which a minority of the populace does not support their own government.
The people of Iraq WERE rising up in opposition to Saddam, so were the people inside Iraq. We helped them. I am talking about whether it is morally right to help0 them free themselves or not. I say it is, and the declaration's language supports me on that.
If governments purpose is to secure the rights of life liberty and property, and IF they derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, THEN Saddam's regime was unlawful. IF that is the case and his people in exile begged us to help them overthrow him and restore democracy (they did), we have every moral right to help them do so. We did so.
I am not making any comparisons. I am deciding that the rights enshrined in the declaration are universal. You don't believe that. Gotcha.
Just remember as I have stated MANY times, I am much more in agreement with the idea that the Iraq war may not have been the wisest choice of action to fight the Jihad -- however, also remember that this thread was mostly about people claiming we were morally wrong for the war. Those are completely different issues. Now we are veering into an area where I am no longer in total disagreement with those who are against the war, and I certainly realize that it is a complicated issue and people can differ on it reasonably. Not so the moral argument.
The problem with the Iraq war is that Iraq/Saddam was not engaged in the Jihad. Iraq/Saddam did not attack the World Trade Center. Iraq/Saddam was not fundamentalist Islam.
As I seem to recall, the war with fundamentalist Islam was with the Sunnis in Afghanistan. Bin Laden was harbored by the Taliban. Somewhere along the line this objective was lost, and Saddam/Iraq became the war against terrorism, the war against WMDs, then the war to liberate Iraq.
Then the motive jumped to the "Axis of Evil" a nice spin that left the Shiite Iranians wondering what happened. You see, Iran was not radical fundamentalist Islam, they were a target of radical fundamentalist Islam. Just as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, and the rest of the legitimate governments of the Muslim world are a target of fundamentalist Islam.
Before they come for you and yours, they want to unite them and theirs. We helped them in Iraq by toppling a government and creating a power vacuum.
The motives in Iraq were always fuzzy, as was the Wolkowicz/Rumsfeld post war plan.
No wonder he threw shoes.
Saddam was in clear violation of the terms of his surrender, he has openly decalred allegiance with teh Jihad (event though THEY thought he was socialist, secular garbage), and he was a clear convenient, strategically placed target -- the reasons we invaded were strategic, not moral.
We also created a honey trap, and it has worked. they flooded into the country, and we humiliated them. Exactly what we needed to do.
We have also proved that we could do something the jihad can not do -- end a tyranny and create a better place for Muslims. The Jihad have NOT done that -- we have.
Ask the Kurds how they feel about us -- there's an untold story for ya.
In the long run it will prove to have been wise in many ways. Watch. See you in two decades when you see.
The end of active hostilities
A peace conference was held in Iraqi territory occupied by the coalition. At the conference, Iraq won the approval of the use of armed helicopters on their side of the temporary border, ostensibly for government transit due to the damage done to civilian transportation. Soon after, these helicopters, and much of the Iraqi armed forces, were refocused toward fighting against a Shiite uprising in the south. The rebellions were encouraged on 2 February 1991 by a broadcast on CIA run radio station The Voice of Free Iraq broadcasting out of Saudi Arabia. The Arabic service of the Voice of America supported the uprising by stating that the rebellion was large and that they soon would be liberated from Hussein.[32]
In the North, Kurdish leaders took heart in American statements that they would support an uprising and began fighting, in the hopes of triggering a coup. However, when no American support was forthcoming, Iraqi generals remained loyal and brutally crushed the Kurdish troops. Millions of Kurds fled across the mountains to Kurdish areas of Turkey and Iran. These incidents would later result in no-fly zones being established in both the North and the South of Iraq. In Kuwait, the Emir was restored and suspected Iraqi collaborators were repressed. Eventually, over 400,000 people were expelled from the country, including a large number of Palestinians (due to their support of and collaboration with Hussein).
There was some criticism of the Bush administration for its decision to allow Saddam Hussein to remain in power, rather than pushing on to capture Baghdad and overthrowing his government. In their co-written 1998 book, A World Transformed, Bush and Brent Scowcroft argued that such a course would have fractured the alliance and would have had many unnecessary political and human costs associated with it.
In 1992, the United States Secretary of Defense during the war, Dick Cheney, made the same point:
I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home. And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.[33]
Instead of greater involvement of its own military, the United States hoped that Saddam Hussein would be overthrown in an internal coup d'état. The Central Intelligence Agency used its assets in Iraq to organize a revolt, but the Iraqi government defeated the effort.
On March 10, 1991, Operation Desert Storm began to move 540,000 American troops out of the Persian Gulf.
Explain why you believe there was a surrender document signed, and what provisions of this alledged surrendar document Saddam violated.
I also find it interesting that the first Gulf War was fought by a coalition, yet the United States took it unilaterally upon itself to determine that Iraq must be invaded, rather than wait for coalition support. Maybe George Herbet Walker Bush was just better at consensus building than George W Bush?
In regard to your "honey trap" and all the rest analogy, why couldn't that have been accomplished in Afghanistan? Also, it appears you are advocating the destruction through continual warfare of a sovereign country, to include deaths of the populace, as the legitimate strategy of the Iraq War, not "liberation" of a people from a dictator as you continually say.
I will say again, no wonder that Iraqi reporter threw his shoes.
There was a cease-fire agreement, and they were in clear violation of it.
The war against Iraq was fought with a coalition as well. GHW Bush WAS better at building a consensus, but that's of course not relevant to the discussion. Neither is the coalition red herring, Either it was justifiable or it was not -- numbers agreeing means nothing.
These are SIDE benefits of the basic strategy, which is to spread liberty and to create allies in strategically placed countries within the "Muslim world." I put that term in quotes because that is how many Muslms see it. I do not see religions as being capable of holding territory. The Jihad does.
I must take this time to thank you for behaving decently here! This is nice!
Just remember as I have stated MANY times, I am much more in agreement with the idea that the Iraq war may not have been the wisest choice of action to fight the Jihad -- however, also remember that this thread was mostly about people claiming we were morally wrong for the war. Those are completely different issues. Now we are veering into an area where I am no longer in total disagreement with those who are against the war, and I certainly realize that it is a complicated issue and people can differ on it reasonably. Not so the moral argument.
The problem with the Iraq war is that Iraq/Saddam was not engaged in the Jihad. Iraq/Saddam did not attack the World Trade Center. Iraq/Saddam was not fundamentalist Islam.
As I seem to recall, the war with fundamentalist Islam was with the Sunnis in Afghanistan. Bin Laden was harbored by the Taliban. Somewhere along the line this objective was lost, and Saddam/Iraq became the war against terrorism, the war against WMDs, then the war to liberate Iraq.
Then the motive jumped to the "Axis of Evil" a nice spin that left the Shiite Iranians wondering what happened. You see, Iran was not radical fundamentalist Islam, they were a target of radical fundamentalist Islam. Just as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, and the rest of the legitimate governments of the Muslim world are a target of fundamentalist Islam.
Before they come for you and yours, they want to unite them and theirs. We helped them in Iraq by toppling a government and creating a power vacuum.
The motives in Iraq were always fuzzy, as was the Wolkowicz/Rumsfeld post war plan.
No wonder he threw shoes.
Saddam was in clear violation of the terms of his surrender, he has openly decalred allegiance with teh Jihad (event though THEY thought he was socialist, secular garbage), and he was a clear convenient, strategically placed target -- the reasons we invaded were strategic, not moral.
We also created a honey trap, and it has worked. they flooded into the country, and we humiliated them. Exactly what we needed to do.
We have also proved that we could do something the jihad can not do -- end a tyranny and create a better place for Muslims. The Jihad have NOT done that -- we have.
Ask the Kurds how they feel about us -- there's an untold story for ya.
In the long run it will prove to have been wise in many ways. Watch. See you in two decades when you see.
Honey trap LOL,Humiliated them,HAHA,so true its huge.
Sweden in deep problems they have alot more to worry about than "US" thats for-sure.Short video about the Sweden...the English starts about 1 minute into the video.
Iraq has 67 billion on had in cash,satellite on every roof,a theocracy on their border trying to destroy there nation,mainly because its threating their power base. The number of Democrcys is growing.We are under a UN mandate, this why the vote is needed to be able to stay with troops,the UN mandate ends next month.
Hmmm from that Video, and taking our friend's advice, it is time for the Swedes to pull out of Sweden.
I got as far as the 90% unemployment rate for Muslim immigrants. I think I can see where the problem lies......
As for Frodus comment that it is all too funny that we humiliated the Iraqi people in the process, yea, I'm sure the Iraqi people are just having barrel of laughs.
Interestingly, when I look in the backgrounds of the news stories coming out of Iraq, I have never seen a satellite on every roof. I do see the living conditions in Sadr City though, and note that there are still continuous problems with power and fresh water infrasturucture distribution.
I was being facetious there...and yes, I know that 90% unemployment has something to do with the problems, although it is hard to establish a real correllation between Jihadism and employment. It seems the JIhad uses every excuse possible to propogandize their goals, and most if not many JIhadis come from the middle and upper classes -- much like Communism. It was sold as a movement of the lower class, but upper class people were actually behind it as well.
The Jihad has incorporated the method of the Marxists and the zeal of religion. It is in fact the most challenging enemy we have ever faced -- much more challenging that either communism or Nazism.
I don't see Frodus saying that it was funny that we humiliated the Iraqi people, but he found it funny that we humiliated the Jihadist attempt to take the country from us. I don't find it funny at all -- I just find it true, especially if you read their writings about their loss in Iraq.
If nothing else this situation has at least proven that the Hollywood films showing secret service agents throwing themselves in front of a president to catch a bullet are a total fabrication.
These guys wouldn't even catch a shoe for their president let alone a bullet.
I support Belgiums efforts to get noticed ... at all.
Originally posted by Fishermage Dictatorships are not legitimate countries. Any country or any individual for that that matter has every right to remove any dictator from power, morally speaking. All free countries should be spreading freedom throughout the world. Pity so many are also moral cowards. It wasn't just America that did this -- we only led this. Where is the "empire?" I see us pulling out, as promised.
Of course dictatorships are not legitimate countries, presidents and prime ministers are not legitimate countries either. They are people, governments. You argue apples and oranges.
A dictatorship is just as legitimate a government as a republic, democracy, theocracy, or oligarchy. Each of these forms of government holds power through the will of the people. No dictator controls his country single handed, he/she forms coalitions to enjoy the support of enough of the populace to retain power.
Governments are not controlled by one person. George W Bush does not control the United States and enjoy the support from 100% of the population. He holds his control based on the support of the Republican Party, a coalition of Republican voters, and a coalition of the Republican Congress.
Saddam enjoyed his position through the support of the Sunni Iraqis. Had it not been Saddam, it would have been another Sunni, possibly from the military. Primarily because a Kurd could not form a coalition to retain power in the country, and the Shiites were/are poorly positioned to govern.
To paraphrase Ghandi...."There go my people, I must hurry to get in front of them, for I am their leader".
I other words you do not believe in our declaration of Independence. If the people are kept in check under a reign of terror, it is the will of the people that they have done so -- if exiles are begging to end the rape of their families -- F'em, they want it like that.
Once again you are comparing apples and oranges. The Declaration of Independance does not call for a foreign nation to initiate hostile action against another nation for the purpose of regime change.
The Declaration of Independance does recognize the right of a people to rise up against their OWN government.
That is why French interferance in the revolution was delayed. That is why foreign intervention in many revolutions is delayed. To determine whether the minority seeking to overthrow their government represent the will of the majority and have just cause.
Under your scenario, we should be liberating Mindinoa from the Phillipines, the Basques from Spain, and the Palestininans from Israel, invading Zimbabwe, and every country in which a minority of the populace does not support their own government.
The people of Iraq WERE rising up in opposition to Saddam, so were the people inside Iraq. We helped them. I am talking about whether it is morally right to help0 them free themselves or not. I say it is, and the declaration's language supports me on that.
If governments purpose is to secure the rights of life liberty and property, and IF they derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, THEN Saddam's regime was unlawful. IF that is the case and his people in exile begged us to help them overthrow him and restore democracy (they did), we have every moral right to help them do so. We did so.
I am not making any comparisons. I am deciding that the rights enshrined in the declaration are universal. You don't believe that. Gotcha.
The people of Iraq were NOT rising up in opposition to Saddam, only certain segments of the population rose up in opposition to Saddam. That does not warrant intervention by a foreign power into the affairs of a sovereign state for the purpose of regime change.
That is why the Iraqi military was disarmed, to prevent the restoration of Saddam. Up until the execution of Saddam such a possibilty was recognized. That is what the Sunni resistance against the United States occupation was all about. Had the United States pulled out immediately, while Saddam was still alive, the Sunni's would have restored Saddam to power.
Saddam's government did secure the rights of liberty and property, and derived it's powers from the consent of the governed just as much as any other government does. It protected the rights of the Sunni constituency, protected the property of the Sunni constituency, and had the consent of the Sunni constituency. That constituency of the Iraqi people makes Saddam's government just as legitimate as the constituency of the Republican Party makes George W Bush's government legitimate. No other nation in the world would interfere in the internal affairs of the United States and invade for the purpose of a regime change based on a revolt or request by the Democrats, or any other segment of the American population. It would be seen as an illegal and immoral act under international law.
Your interpretation of the rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independance is comparing apples and oranges. The over riding principle of the Declaration of Independance was that it represented, both through the elected legislatures of ALL of the 13 American Colonies, and through each legislatures designed signatories, the grievances of ALL 13 colonies. It was not a declaration of only a segment of the population.
It wasn't signed by one colony, it wasn't signed by a minority of colonies, it wasn't signed by a majority of colonies, IT WAS SIGNED BY A CONSENSUS OF ALL THE COLONIES. That was a very important distinction at the time because it allowed for legitimate international recognition of the revolution.
Your arguement is that if a segment of a sovereign nation requests assistance in overthrowing a government that they feel is tyranical, the United States has the obligation under the Declaration of Independance to respond militarily and overthrow that regime. That is a receipe for toppling every single legitimate government in the world. Under your scenario, we should be invading Israel and liberating the Palestinian people.
You are twisting and subverting the Declaration of Independance to make it a document which justifies overthrowing any regime any where in the world that has even an insignificant amount of it's population that denounces their government as a tyranny. It doesn't work that way.
And, by the way, your use of the word "gotcha" is still not a magic "I win" button.
Just remember as I have stated MANY times, I am much more in agreement with the idea that the Iraq war may not have been the wisest choice of action to fight the Jihad -- however, also remember that this thread was mostly about people claiming we were morally wrong for the war. Those are completely different issues. Now we are veering into an area where I am no longer in total disagreement with those who are against the war, and I certainly realize that it is a complicated issue and people can differ on it reasonably. Not so the moral argument.
The problem with the Iraq war is that Iraq/Saddam was not engaged in the Jihad. Iraq/Saddam did not attack the World Trade Center. Iraq/Saddam was not fundamentalist Islam.
As I seem to recall, the war with fundamentalist Islam was with the Sunnis in Afghanistan. Bin Laden was harbored by the Taliban. Somewhere along the line this objective was lost, and Saddam/Iraq became the war against terrorism, the war against WMDs, then the war to liberate Iraq.
Then the motive jumped to the "Axis of Evil" a nice spin that left the Shiite Iranians wondering what happened. You see, Iran was not radical fundamentalist Islam, they were a target of radical fundamentalist Islam. Just as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, and the rest of the legitimate governments of the Muslim world are a target of fundamentalist Islam.
Before they come for you and yours, they want to unite them and theirs. We helped them in Iraq by toppling a government and creating a power vacuum.
The motives in Iraq were always fuzzy, as was the Wolkowicz/Rumsfeld post war plan.
No wonder he threw shoes.
Saddam was in clear violation of the terms of his surrender, he has openly decalred allegiance with teh Jihad (event though THEY thought he was socialist, secular garbage), and he was a clear convenient, strategically placed target -- the reasons we invaded were strategic, not moral.
We also created a honey trap, and it has worked. they flooded into the country, and we humiliated them. Exactly what we needed to do.
We have also proved that we could do something the jihad can not do -- end a tyranny and create a better place for Muslims. The Jihad have NOT done that -- we have.
Ask the Kurds how they feel about us -- there's an untold story for ya.
In the long run it will prove to have been wise in many ways. Watch. See you in two decades when you see.
The end of active hostilities
A peace conference was held in Iraqi territory occupied by the coalition. At the conference, Iraq won the approval of the use of armed helicopters on their side of the temporary border, ostensibly for government transit due to the damage done to civilian transportation. Soon after, these helicopters, and much of the Iraqi armed forces, were refocused toward fighting against a Shiite uprising in the south. The rebellions were encouraged on 2 February 1991 by a broadcast on CIA run radio station The Voice of Free Iraq broadcasting out of Saudi Arabia. The Arabic service of the Voice of America supported the uprising by stating that the rebellion was large and that they soon would be liberated from Hussein.[32]
In the North, Kurdish leaders took heart in American statements that they would support an uprising and began fighting, in the hopes of triggering a coup. However, when no American support was forthcoming, Iraqi generals remained loyal and brutally crushed the Kurdish troops. Millions of Kurds fled across the mountains to Kurdish areas of Turkey and Iran. These incidents would later result in no-fly zones being established in both the North and the South of Iraq. In Kuwait, the Emir was restored and suspected Iraqi collaborators were repressed. Eventually, over 400,000 people were expelled from the country, including a large number of Palestinians (due to their support of and collaboration with Hussein).
There was some criticism of the Bush administration for its decision to allow Saddam Hussein to remain in power, rather than pushing on to capture Baghdad and overthrowing his government. In their co-written 1998 book, A World Transformed, Bush and Brent Scowcroft argued that such a course would have fractured the alliance and would have had many unnecessary political and human costs associated with it.
In 1992, the United States Secretary of Defense during the war, Dick Cheney, made the same point:
I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home. And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.[33]
Instead of greater involvement of its own military, the United States hoped that Saddam Hussein would be overthrown in an internal coup d'état. The Central Intelligence Agency used its assets in Iraq to organize a revolt, but the Iraqi government defeated the effort.
On March 10, 1991, Operation Desert Storm began to move 540,000 American troops out of the Persian Gulf.
Explain why you believe there was a surrender document signed, and what provisions of this alledged surrendar document Saddam violated.
I also find it interesting that the first Gulf War was fought by a coalition, yet the United States took it unilaterally upon itself to determine that Iraq must be invaded, rather than wait for coalition support. Maybe George Herbet Walker Bush was just better at consensus building than George W Bush?
In regard to your "honey trap" and all the rest analogy, why couldn't that have been accomplished in Afghanistan? Also, it appears you are advocating the destruction through continual warfare of a sovereign country, to include deaths of the populace, as the legitimate strategy of the Iraq War, not "liberation" of a people from a dictator as you continually say.
I will say again, no wonder that Iraqi reporter threw his shoes.
There was a cease-fire agreement, and they were in clear violation of it.
The war against Iraq was fought with a coalition as well. GHW Bush WAS better at building a consensus, but that's of course not relevant to the discussion. Neither is the coalition red herring, Either it was justifiable or it was not -- numbers agreeing means nothing.
These are SIDE benefits of the basic strategy, which is to spread liberty and to create allies in strategically placed countries within the "Muslim world." I put that term in quotes because that is how many Muslms see it. I do not see religions as being capable of holding territory. The Jihad does.
I must take this time to thank you for behaving decently here! This is nice!
Thank you for acknowledging that there was no surrender document ever signed.
I remember the coalition George W Bush put together. It occurred as a result of Secretary of State Colin Powell going up before the United Nations and presenting pictures of an alledged mobile weapons lab, or smoke, mirrors, and distortions. Funny how Colin Powell didn't stick around after he was used to spread disinformation to justify an illegal regime change. It was a coalition formed after the decision to invade had been made, for the sake of covering our ass. It comes in handy right about now, as we argue on the forums doesn't it? But it was always an American driven train. It was pulling out of the station, regardless of who was aboard.
I don't consider a coalition comprised of members who feel they have to make a show of their flag to stay in the good graces of an ally to be a legitimate coaltion. Where are they all now? Were they true believers in 'the cause"?
As to inspections, Saddam complied with the inspectors, he allowed them access, allowed them to conduct their inspections, however they were not finding anything. No matter how hard they looked, they never found anything. No matter what demands were placed on him, to rummage through his dirty underwear every morning, to inspect his girlfriends IUDs, to checking his palaces, cars, gas stations, car washes, etc, no WMDs were every found. Why was that? Maybe Saddam just grew tired of it all, and thought "enough is enough"? How could Saddam ever prove a negative, that he had no WMDs?
After a certain point the inspections become pointless. The inspectors could have searched for a thousand years for Saddam's WMDs, and the result would have been the same.
Side benefits? Name me which Muslim country in the region has decided to become an ally of the United States as a result of the Iraq war?
If anything, they have learned not to invite us in. We make terrible guests, trash their house, insult their family, and never go home. Why do you think this guy threw his shoes at Bush, because he liked him and though Dubya could use the footwear as a gift?
And I appreciate your appreciation. Just lay off the "gotcha" terms and quit trying to use an "I win" button.
Originally posted by Fishermage Dictatorships are not legitimate countries. Any country or any individual for that that matter has every right to remove any dictator from power, morally speaking. All free countries should be spreading freedom throughout the world. Pity so many are also moral cowards. It wasn't just America that did this -- we only led this. Where is the "empire?" I see us pulling out, as promised.
Of course dictatorships are not legitimate countries, presidents and prime ministers are not legitimate countries either. They are people, governments. You argue apples and oranges.
A dictatorship is just as legitimate a government as a republic, democracy, theocracy, or oligarchy. Each of these forms of government holds power through the will of the people. No dictator controls his country single handed, he/she forms coalitions to enjoy the support of enough of the populace to retain power.
Governments are not controlled by one person. George W Bush does not control the United States and enjoy the support from 100% of the population. He holds his control based on the support of the Republican Party, a coalition of Republican voters, and a coalition of the Republican Congress.
Saddam enjoyed his position through the support of the Sunni Iraqis. Had it not been Saddam, it would have been another Sunni, possibly from the military. Primarily because a Kurd could not form a coalition to retain power in the country, and the Shiites were/are poorly positioned to govern.
To paraphrase Ghandi...."There go my people, I must hurry to get in front of them, for I am their leader".
I other words you do not believe in our declaration of Independence. If the people are kept in check under a reign of terror, it is the will of the people that they have done so -- if exiles are begging to end the rape of their families -- F'em, they want it like that.
Once again you are comparing apples and oranges. The Declaration of Independance does not call for a foreign nation to initiate hostile action against another nation for the purpose of regime change.
The Declaration of Independance does recognize the right of a people to rise up against their OWN government.
That is why French interferance in the revolution was delayed. That is why foreign intervention in many revolutions is delayed. To determine whether the minority seeking to overthrow their government represent the will of the majority and have just cause.
Under your scenario, we should be liberating Mindinoa from the Phillipines, the Basques from Spain, and the Palestininans from Israel, invading Zimbabwe, and every country in which a minority of the populace does not support their own government.
The people of Iraq WERE rising up in opposition to Saddam, so were the people inside Iraq. We helped them. I am talking about whether it is morally right to help0 them free themselves or not. I say it is, and the declaration's language supports me on that.
If governments purpose is to secure the rights of life liberty and property, and IF they derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, THEN Saddam's regime was unlawful. IF that is the case and his people in exile begged us to help them overthrow him and restore democracy (they did), we have every moral right to help them do so. We did so.
I am not making any comparisons. I am deciding that the rights enshrined in the declaration are universal. You don't believe that. Gotcha.
The people of Iraq were NOT rising up in opposition to Saddam, only certain segments of the population rose up in opposition to Saddam. That does not warrant intervention by a foreign power into the affairs of a sovereign state for the purpose of regime change.
That is why the Iraqi military was disarmed, to prevent the restoration of Saddam. Up until the execution of Saddam such a possibilty was recognized. That is what the Sunni resistance against the United States occupation was all about. Had the United States pulled out immediately, while Saddam was still alive, the Sunni's would have restored Saddam to power.
Saddam's government did secure the rights of liberty and property, and derived it's powers from the consent of the governed just as much as any other government does. It protected the rights of the Sunni constituency, protected the property of the Sunni constituency, and had the consent of the Sunni constituency. That constituency of the Iraqi people makes Saddam's government just as legitimate as the constituency of the Republican Party. No other nation in the world would interfere in the internal affairs of the United States and invade for the purpose of a regime change based on a revolt or request by the Democrats, or any other segment of the American population. It would be seen as an illegal and immoral act under international law.
Your interpretation of the rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independance is comparing apples and oranges. The over riding principle of the Declaration of Independance was that it represented, both through the elected legislatures of ALL of the 13 American Colonies, and through each legislatures designed signatories, the grievances of ALL 13 colonies. It was not a declaration of only a segment of the population.
It wasn't signed by one colony, it wasn't signed by a minority of colonies, it wasn't signed by a majority of colonies, IT WAS SIGNED BY A CONSENSUS OF ALL THE COLONIES. That was a very important distinction at the time because it allowed for legitimate international recognition of the revolution.
Your arguement is that if a segment of a sovereign nation requests assistance in overthrowing a government that they feel is tyranical, the United States has the obligation under the Declaration of Independance to respond militarily and overthrow that regime. That is a receipe for toppling every single legitimate government in the world. Under your scenario, we should be invading Israel and liberating the Palestinian people.
You are twisting and subverting the Declaration of Independance to make it a document which justifies overthrowing any regime any where in the world that has even an insignificant amount of it's population that denounces their government as a tyranny. It doesn't work that way.
And, by the way, your use of the word "gotcha" is still not a magic "I win" button.
Oh well, at least you WERE arguing decently. there you go again with that "I win" button crap. I'll try with you the next time you try and be civilized. Bummer, it was nice for a moment.
Just remember as I have stated MANY times, I am much more in agreement with the idea that the Iraq war may not have been the wisest choice of action to fight the Jihad -- however, also remember that this thread was mostly about people claiming we were morally wrong for the war. Those are completely different issues. Now we are veering into an area where I am no longer in total disagreement with those who are against the war, and I certainly realize that it is a complicated issue and people can differ on it reasonably. Not so the moral argument.
The problem with the Iraq war is that Iraq/Saddam was not engaged in the Jihad. Iraq/Saddam did not attack the World Trade Center. Iraq/Saddam was not fundamentalist Islam.
As I seem to recall, the war with fundamentalist Islam was with the Sunnis in Afghanistan. Bin Laden was harbored by the Taliban. Somewhere along the line this objective was lost, and Saddam/Iraq became the war against terrorism, the war against WMDs, then the war to liberate Iraq.
Then the motive jumped to the "Axis of Evil" a nice spin that left the Shiite Iranians wondering what happened. You see, Iran was not radical fundamentalist Islam, they were a target of radical fundamentalist Islam. Just as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, and the rest of the legitimate governments of the Muslim world are a target of fundamentalist Islam.
Before they come for you and yours, they want to unite them and theirs. We helped them in Iraq by toppling a government and creating a power vacuum.
The motives in Iraq were always fuzzy, as was the Wolkowicz/Rumsfeld post war plan.
No wonder he threw shoes.
Saddam was in clear violation of the terms of his surrender, he has openly decalred allegiance with teh Jihad (event though THEY thought he was socialist, secular garbage), and he was a clear convenient, strategically placed target -- the reasons we invaded were strategic, not moral.
We also created a honey trap, and it has worked. they flooded into the country, and we humiliated them. Exactly what we needed to do.
We have also proved that we could do something the jihad can not do -- end a tyranny and create a better place for Muslims. The Jihad have NOT done that -- we have.
Ask the Kurds how they feel about us -- there's an untold story for ya.
In the long run it will prove to have been wise in many ways. Watch. See you in two decades when you see.
The end of active hostilities
A peace conference was held in Iraqi territory occupied by the coalition. At the conference, Iraq won the approval of the use of armed helicopters on their side of the temporary border, ostensibly for government transit due to the damage done to civilian transportation. Soon after, these helicopters, and much of the Iraqi armed forces, were refocused toward fighting against a Shiite uprising in the south. The rebellions were encouraged on 2 February 1991 by a broadcast on CIA run radio station The Voice of Free Iraq broadcasting out of Saudi Arabia. The Arabic service of the Voice of America supported the uprising by stating that the rebellion was large and that they soon would be liberated from Hussein.[32]
In the North, Kurdish leaders took heart in American statements that they would support an uprising and began fighting, in the hopes of triggering a coup. However, when no American support was forthcoming, Iraqi generals remained loyal and brutally crushed the Kurdish troops. Millions of Kurds fled across the mountains to Kurdish areas of Turkey and Iran. These incidents would later result in no-fly zones being established in both the North and the South of Iraq. In Kuwait, the Emir was restored and suspected Iraqi collaborators were repressed. Eventually, over 400,000 people were expelled from the country, including a large number of Palestinians (due to their support of and collaboration with Hussein).
There was some criticism of the Bush administration for its decision to allow Saddam Hussein to remain in power, rather than pushing on to capture Baghdad and overthrowing his government. In their co-written 1998 book, A World Transformed, Bush and Brent Scowcroft argued that such a course would have fractured the alliance and would have had many unnecessary political and human costs associated with it.
In 1992, the United States Secretary of Defense during the war, Dick Cheney, made the same point:
I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home. And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.[33]
Instead of greater involvement of its own military, the United States hoped that Saddam Hussein would be overthrown in an internal coup d'état. The Central Intelligence Agency used its assets in Iraq to organize a revolt, but the Iraqi government defeated the effort.
On March 10, 1991, Operation Desert Storm began to move 540,000 American troops out of the Persian Gulf.
Explain why you believe there was a surrender document signed, and what provisions of this alledged surrendar document Saddam violated.
I also find it interesting that the first Gulf War was fought by a coalition, yet the United States took it unilaterally upon itself to determine that Iraq must be invaded, rather than wait for coalition support. Maybe George Herbet Walker Bush was just better at consensus building than George W Bush?
In regard to your "honey trap" and all the rest analogy, why couldn't that have been accomplished in Afghanistan? Also, it appears you are advocating the destruction through continual warfare of a sovereign country, to include deaths of the populace, as the legitimate strategy of the Iraq War, not "liberation" of a people from a dictator as you continually say.
I will say again, no wonder that Iraqi reporter threw his shoes.
There was a cease-fire agreement, and they were in clear violation of it.
The war against Iraq was fought with a coalition as well. GHW Bush WAS better at building a consensus, but that's of course not relevant to the discussion. Neither is the coalition red herring, Either it was justifiable or it was not -- numbers agreeing means nothing.
These are SIDE benefits of the basic strategy, which is to spread liberty and to create allies in strategically placed countries within the "Muslim world." I put that term in quotes because that is how many Muslms see it. I do not see religions as being capable of holding territory. The Jihad does.
I must take this time to thank you for behaving decently here! This is nice!
Thank you for acknowledging that there was no surrender document ever signed.
I remember the coalition George W Bush put together. It occurred as a result of Secretary of State Colin Powell going up before the United Nations and presenting pictures of an alledged mobile weapons lab, or smoke, mirrors, and distortions. Funny how Colin Powell didn't stick around after he was used to spread disinformation to justify an illegal regime change. It was a coalition formed after the decision to invade had been made, for the sake of covering our ass. It comes in handy right about now, as we argue on the forums doesn't it? But it was always an American show.
I don't consider a coalition comprised of members who feel they have to make a show of their flag to stay in the good graces of an ally to be a legitimate coaltion. Where are they all now? Were they true believers in 'the cause"?
I am glad you feel this second coalition of the members downright lied to is as valid as the coalition of George Herbert Walker Bush, though it included only the gullible. I guess being lied to still makes them a willing participant.
As to inspections, Saddam complied with the inspectors, he allowed them access, allowed them to conduct their inspections, however they were not finding anything. No matter how hard they looked, they never found anything. No matter what demands were placed on him, to rummage through his dirty underwear every morning, to inspect his girlfriends IUDs, to checking his palaces, cars, gas stations, car washes, etc, no WMDs were every found. Why was that? Maybe Saddam just grew tired of it all, and thought "enough is enough"? How could Saddam ever prove a negative, that he had no WMDs?
After a certain point the inspections become pointless. The inspectors could have searched for a thousand years for Saddam's WMDs, and the result would have been the same.
Side benefits? Name me which Muslim country in the region has decided to become an ally of the United States as a result of the Iraq war?
If anything, they have learned not to invite us in. We make terrible guests, trash their house, insult their family, and never go home. Why do you think this guy threw his shoes at Bush, because he liked him and though Dubya could use the footwear as a gift?
And I appreciate your appreciation. Just lay off the "gotcha" terms and quit trying to use an "I win" button.
I hope that punk gets what he deserves for throwing a shoe at our President.
And I hope your President gets what he deserves for killing thousands of innocent people and increasing the hate in the world that will lead to hundreds of thousands of innocent lifes lost and infinite suffering for the families.
Originally posted by Fishermage I was being facetious there...and yes, I know that 90% unemployment has something to do with the problems, although it is hard to establish a real correllation between Jihadism and employment. It seems the JIhad uses every excuse possible to propogandize their goals, and most if not many JIhadis come from the middle and upper classes -- much like Communism. It was sold as a movement of the lower class, but upper class people were actually behind it as well. The Jihad has incorporated the method of the Marxists and the zeal of religion. It is in fact the most challenging enemy we have ever faced -- much more challenging that either communism or Nazism. I don't see Frodus saying that it was funny that we humiliated the Iraqi people, but he found it funny that we humiliated the Jihadist attempt to take the country from us. I don't find it funny at all -- I just find it true, especially if you read their writings about their loss in Iraq.
I realize your comment was less than serious.
One of the areas we seem to disagree in is the resolution of the problem of fundamentalists. I believe that given economic participation on a level playing field most fathers and mothers will want their sons and daughters to go to school, get an education, become doctors, scientists, engineers, etc rather than engage in suicide bombing attacks.
In order to stabilize the region it is important not to just give the illussion of hope, but to actually deliver the bacon. Revolution and insurgencies do not thrive where there is a strong middle class. They breed in the poverty of the third world, which is predominately feudal agrarian.
Iraq was actually on the verge of making the transition into the industrial age. With this transition would have come increased wealth, and ultimately Saddam/Sunnis would have shared power to leverage the wealth/consumer cycle of the Shiites and Kurds. Economies grow based on circulation of capital, the more the capital circulates, the faster the capital circulates, the more the society is enriched. Choke off the flow of capital and the economy stagnates. Taxes is not the key, if capital is circulating more, and faster, a lower tax rate can actually generate more revenue. Economic problems therefore should be addressed by stimulating the circulation of capital. Circulation is the cause, taxes becomes the effect. Circulation drives taxes, not vice versa.
Anyway, back up a bit and consider the problem China has today, the Chinese people are getting a taste of what not having to live hand to mouth is about. They will not subserviently go back to a feudal agrarian existance. Their government must move foreward. It is as Ghandi said, "There go my people, I must hurry to get in front of them, for I am their leader".
Marxism failed because the western standard of living passed it by. Frankly, had Kruschev been able to bury us, and leave us in the dust economically, most of the world would have taken up the Communist mantra willingly. The fact that they couldn't meant their people were willing to take up the capitalist mantra. Once again, "There go my people, I must hurry to get in front of them, for I am their leader".
My comment back to Frodus was that in humiliating the Al Quada insurgency in Iraq we also humiliated the Iraqi people. It is the law of unintended consequences.
So you see Sabian, if you read this -- there ARE people here that are arguing that FOR saddam -- that he was the legitimate ruler of Iraq. that the Kurds wanted to be gassed, that the Shiites wanted to fill up mass graves for saddam, that they wanted to watch their family members being raped -- it was just. good, and legitimate. It was the will of the Iraqi people and we were wrong to try and put an end to that.
I hope that punk gets what he deserves for throwing a shoe at our President.
And I hope your President gets what he deserves for killing thousands of innocent people and increasing the hate in the world that will lead to hundreds of thousands of innocent lifes lost and infinite suffering for the families.
The hate is IN YOU, and it's no one's fault but your own.
Originally posted by Fishermage Dictatorships are not legitimate countries. Any country or any individual for that that matter has every right to remove any dictator from power, morally speaking. All free countries should be spreading freedom throughout the world. Pity so many are also moral cowards. It wasn't just America that did this -- we only led this. Where is the "empire?" I see us pulling out, as promised.
Of course dictatorships are not legitimate countries, presidents and prime ministers are not legitimate countries either. They are people, governments. You argue apples and oranges.
A dictatorship is just as legitimate a government as a republic, democracy, theocracy, or oligarchy. Each of these forms of government holds power through the will of the people. No dictator controls his country single handed, he/she forms coalitions to enjoy the support of enough of the populace to retain power.
Governments are not controlled by one person. George W Bush does not control the United States and enjoy the support from 100% of the population. He holds his control based on the support of the Republican Party, a coalition of Republican voters, and a coalition of the Republican Congress.
Saddam enjoyed his position through the support of the Sunni Iraqis. Had it not been Saddam, it would have been another Sunni, possibly from the military. Primarily because a Kurd could not form a coalition to retain power in the country, and the Shiites were/are poorly positioned to govern.
To paraphrase Ghandi...."There go my people, I must hurry to get in front of them, for I am their leader".
I other words you do not believe in our declaration of Independence. If the people are kept in check under a reign of terror, it is the will of the people that they have done so -- if exiles are begging to end the rape of their families -- F'em, they want it like that.
Once again you are comparing apples and oranges. The Declaration of Independance does not call for a foreign nation to initiate hostile action against another nation for the purpose of regime change.
The Declaration of Independance does recognize the right of a people to rise up against their OWN government.
That is why French interferance in the revolution was delayed. That is why foreign intervention in many revolutions is delayed. To determine whether the minority seeking to overthrow their government represent the will of the majority and have just cause.
Under your scenario, we should be liberating Mindinoa from the Phillipines, the Basques from Spain, and the Palestininans from Israel, invading Zimbabwe, and every country in which a minority of the populace does not support their own government.
The people of Iraq WERE rising up in opposition to Saddam, so were the people inside Iraq. We helped them. I am talking about whether it is morally right to help0 them free themselves or not. I say it is, and the declaration's language supports me on that.
If governments purpose is to secure the rights of life liberty and property, and IF they derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, THEN Saddam's regime was unlawful. IF that is the case and his people in exile begged us to help them overthrow him and restore democracy (they did), we have every moral right to help them do so. We did so.
I am not making any comparisons. I am deciding that the rights enshrined in the declaration are universal. You don't believe that. Gotcha.
The people of Iraq were NOT rising up in opposition to Saddam, only certain segments of the population rose up in opposition to Saddam. That does not warrant intervention by a foreign power into the affairs of a sovereign state for the purpose of regime change.
That is why the Iraqi military was disarmed, to prevent the restoration of Saddam. Up until the execution of Saddam such a possibilty was recognized. That is what the Sunni resistance against the United States occupation was all about. Had the United States pulled out immediately, while Saddam was still alive, the Sunni's would have restored Saddam to power.
Saddam's government did secure the rights of liberty and property, and derived it's powers from the consent of the governed just as much as any other government does. It protected the rights of the Sunni constituency, protected the property of the Sunni constituency, and had the consent of the Sunni constituency. That constituency of the Iraqi people makes Saddam's government just as legitimate as the constituency of the Republican Party. No other nation in the world would interfere in the internal affairs of the United States and invade for the purpose of a regime change based on a revolt or request by the Democrats, or any other segment of the American population. It would be seen as an illegal and immoral act under international law.
Your interpretation of the rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independance is comparing apples and oranges. The over riding principle of the Declaration of Independance was that it represented, both through the elected legislatures of ALL of the 13 American Colonies, and through each legislatures designed signatories, the grievances of ALL 13 colonies. It was not a declaration of only a segment of the population.
It wasn't signed by one colony, it wasn't signed by a minority of colonies, it wasn't signed by a majority of colonies, IT WAS SIGNED BY A CONSENSUS OF ALL THE COLONIES. That was a very important distinction at the time because it allowed for legitimate international recognition of the revolution.
Your arguement is that if a segment of a sovereign nation requests assistance in overthrowing a government that they feel is tyranical, the United States has the obligation under the Declaration of Independance to respond militarily and overthrow that regime. That is a receipe for toppling every single legitimate government in the world. Under your scenario, we should be invading Israel and liberating the Palestinian people.
You are twisting and subverting the Declaration of Independance to make it a document which justifies overthrowing any regime any where in the world that has even an insignificant amount of it's population that denounces their government as a tyranny. It doesn't work that way.
And, by the way, your use of the word "gotcha" is still not a magic "I win" button.
Oh well, at least you WERE arguing decently. there you go again with that "I win" button crap. I'll try with you the next time you try and be civilized. Bummer, it was nice for a moment.
You went first with the "gotcha" statement. I responded in kind. You reap what you sow.
Originally posted by Fishermage Dictatorships are not legitimate countries. Any country or any individual for that that matter has every right to remove any dictator from power, morally speaking. All free countries should be spreading freedom throughout the world. Pity so many are also moral cowards. It wasn't just America that did this -- we only led this. Where is the "empire?" I see us pulling out, as promised.
Of course dictatorships are not legitimate countries, presidents and prime ministers are not legitimate countries either. They are people, governments. You argue apples and oranges.
A dictatorship is just as legitimate a government as a republic, democracy, theocracy, or oligarchy. Each of these forms of government holds power through the will of the people. No dictator controls his country single handed, he/she forms coalitions to enjoy the support of enough of the populace to retain power.
Governments are not controlled by one person. George W Bush does not control the United States and enjoy the support from 100% of the population. He holds his control based on the support of the Republican Party, a coalition of Republican voters, and a coalition of the Republican Congress.
Saddam enjoyed his position through the support of the Sunni Iraqis. Had it not been Saddam, it would have been another Sunni, possibly from the military. Primarily because a Kurd could not form a coalition to retain power in the country, and the Shiites were/are poorly positioned to govern.
To paraphrase Ghandi...."There go my people, I must hurry to get in front of them, for I am their leader".
I other words you do not believe in our declaration of Independence. If the people are kept in check under a reign of terror, it is the will of the people that they have done so -- if exiles are begging to end the rape of their families -- F'em, they want it like that.
Once again you are comparing apples and oranges. The Declaration of Independance does not call for a foreign nation to initiate hostile action against another nation for the purpose of regime change.
The Declaration of Independance does recognize the right of a people to rise up against their OWN government.
That is why French interferance in the revolution was delayed. That is why foreign intervention in many revolutions is delayed. To determine whether the minority seeking to overthrow their government represent the will of the majority and have just cause.
Under your scenario, we should be liberating Mindinoa from the Phillipines, the Basques from Spain, and the Palestininans from Israel, invading Zimbabwe, and every country in which a minority of the populace does not support their own government.
The people of Iraq WERE rising up in opposition to Saddam, so were the people inside Iraq. We helped them. I am talking about whether it is morally right to help0 them free themselves or not. I say it is, and the declaration's language supports me on that.
If governments purpose is to secure the rights of life liberty and property, and IF they derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, THEN Saddam's regime was unlawful. IF that is the case and his people in exile begged us to help them overthrow him and restore democracy (they did), we have every moral right to help them do so. We did so.
I am not making any comparisons. I am deciding that the rights enshrined in the declaration are universal. You don't believe that. Gotcha.
The people of Iraq were NOT rising up in opposition to Saddam, only certain segments of the population rose up in opposition to Saddam. That does not warrant intervention by a foreign power into the affairs of a sovereign state for the purpose of regime change.
That is why the Iraqi military was disarmed, to prevent the restoration of Saddam. Up until the execution of Saddam such a possibilty was recognized. That is what the Sunni resistance against the United States occupation was all about. Had the United States pulled out immediately, while Saddam was still alive, the Sunni's would have restored Saddam to power.
Saddam's government did secure the rights of liberty and property, and derived it's powers from the consent of the governed just as much as any other government does. It protected the rights of the Sunni constituency, protected the property of the Sunni constituency, and had the consent of the Sunni constituency. That constituency of the Iraqi people makes Saddam's government just as legitimate as the constituency of the Republican Party. No other nation in the world would interfere in the internal affairs of the United States and invade for the purpose of a regime change based on a revolt or request by the Democrats, or any other segment of the American population. It would be seen as an illegal and immoral act under international law.
Your interpretation of the rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independance is comparing apples and oranges. The over riding principle of the Declaration of Independance was that it represented, both through the elected legislatures of ALL of the 13 American Colonies, and through each legislatures designed signatories, the grievances of ALL 13 colonies. It was not a declaration of only a segment of the population.
It wasn't signed by one colony, it wasn't signed by a minority of colonies, it wasn't signed by a majority of colonies, IT WAS SIGNED BY A CONSENSUS OF ALL THE COLONIES. That was a very important distinction at the time because it allowed for legitimate international recognition of the revolution.
Your arguement is that if a segment of a sovereign nation requests assistance in overthrowing a government that they feel is tyranical, the United States has the obligation under the Declaration of Independance to respond militarily and overthrow that regime. That is a receipe for toppling every single legitimate government in the world. Under your scenario, we should be invading Israel and liberating the Palestinian people.
You are twisting and subverting the Declaration of Independance to make it a document which justifies overthrowing any regime any where in the world that has even an insignificant amount of it's population that denounces their government as a tyranny. It doesn't work that way.
And, by the way, your use of the word "gotcha" is still not a magic "I win" button.
Oh well, at least you WERE arguing decently. there you go again with that "I win" button crap. I'll try with you the next time you try and be civilized. Bummer, it was nice for a moment.
You went first with the "gotcha" statement. I responded in kind. You reap what you sow.
Gotcha means, "I understand what you are saying." that did not deserve YOU getting personal. Sorry, once again you have shown you have no real desire to have a reasonable discussion. Dang, and I was so looking forward to what might have been a real debate. Oh well.
Maybe someday a liberal will rise who knows how decent people argue.
looks like fishermage just got the excuse he needed to back out of the debate.
ya, I sorta read "Gotcha" the same way olddaddy did. Now that hes pretty much owned you in a debate you're pulling out a single phrase he said and spinning it to insinuate that he went for a personal tone with you.
meanwhile, you finish off by insulting him by calling him a liberal and not being capable of holding a debate with you. Another "I win" button for you consistant across many threads I see you post in. When you cant backup what you're saying, you try to make the person you're debating look like theyre insulting you. Meanwhile, you do the same thing and call the debate over, but thats OK
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a robot foot stomping on a human face -- forever."
lol.. I was getting out the popcorn too looks like fishermage just got the excuse he needed to back out of the debate. ya, I sorta read "Gotcha" the same way olddaddy did. Now that hes pretty much owned you in a debate you're pulling out a single phrase he said and spinning it to insinuate that he went for a personal tone with you. meanwhile, you finish off by insulting him by calling him a liberal and not being capable of holding a debate with you. Another "I win" button for you consistant across many threads I see you post in. When you cant backup what you're saying, you try to make the person you're debating look like theyre insulting you. Meanwhile, you do the same thing and call the debate over, but thats OK
I am BEGGING for a good discussion here, one without the crap. I answered him, and complimented him, until he went butthead on me. I did NOT call him anything -- I asked for a liberal to come forward who knows how decent people debate. I desperately want that here.
I was ENJOYING the debate, he didn't "own" me -- he was making the argument that the Iraqis wanted and supported Saddam, wanted their women raped by him, wanted to be gassed by him, wanted to fill mass graves for him -- and I was disagreeing. If you think he "owned" me, you must feel that way to. Do you?
He was also trying to make a VERY weak case that a ceasefire agreement is materially different than a surrender agreement -- as if it matters to the debate. It doesn't.
I still disagree, but I have no desire to debate with people who resort to shabby tactics. In fact, according to the mods we are NOT ALLOWED to engage such people. We MUST stop responding, OR ELSE. That's how these forums work whe you are not a liberal.
I am NOT insulted, and he was NOT insulting me. It is impossible to insult me. That doesn't mean i won't call him when he returns to his usual tactics.
is there a liberal here who knows how decent people debate? Bring it on
Originally posted by Fishermage Dictatorships are not legitimate countries. Any country or any individual for that that matter has every right to remove any dictator from power, morally speaking. All free countries should be spreading freedom throughout the world. Pity so many are also moral cowards. It wasn't just America that did this -- we only led this. Where is the "empire?" I see us pulling out, as promised.
Of course dictatorships are not legitimate countries, presidents and prime ministers are not legitimate countries either. They are people, governments. You argue apples and oranges.
A dictatorship is just as legitimate a government as a republic, democracy, theocracy, or oligarchy. Each of these forms of government holds power through the will of the people. No dictator controls his country single handed, he/she forms coalitions to enjoy the support of enough of the populace to retain power.
Governments are not controlled by one person. George W Bush does not control the United States and enjoy the support from 100% of the population. He holds his control based on the support of the Republican Party, a coalition of Republican voters, and a coalition of the Republican Congress.
Saddam enjoyed his position through the support of the Sunni Iraqis. Had it not been Saddam, it would have been another Sunni, possibly from the military. Primarily because a Kurd could not form a coalition to retain power in the country, and the Shiites were/are poorly positioned to govern.
To paraphrase Ghandi...."There go my people, I must hurry to get in front of them, for I am their leader".
I other words you do not believe in our declaration of Independence. If the people are kept in check under a reign of terror, it is the will of the people that they have done so -- if exiles are begging to end the rape of their families -- F'em, they want it like that.
Once again you are comparing apples and oranges. The Declaration of Independance does not call for a foreign nation to initiate hostile action against another nation for the purpose of regime change.
The Declaration of Independance does recognize the right of a people to rise up against their OWN government.
That is why French interferance in the revolution was delayed. That is why foreign intervention in many revolutions is delayed. To determine whether the minority seeking to overthrow their government represent the will of the majority and have just cause.
Under your scenario, we should be liberating Mindinoa from the Phillipines, the Basques from Spain, and the Palestininans from Israel, invading Zimbabwe, and every country in which a minority of the populace does not support their own government.
The people of Iraq WERE rising up in opposition to Saddam, so were the people inside Iraq. We helped them. I am talking about whether it is morally right to help0 them free themselves or not. I say it is, and the declaration's language supports me on that.
If governments purpose is to secure the rights of life liberty and property, and IF they derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, THEN Saddam's regime was unlawful. IF that is the case and his people in exile begged us to help them overthrow him and restore democracy (they did), we have every moral right to help them do so. We did so.
I am not making any comparisons. I am deciding that the rights enshrined in the declaration are universal. You don't believe that. Gotcha.
The people of Iraq were NOT rising up in opposition to Saddam, only certain segments of the population rose up in opposition to Saddam. That does not warrant intervention by a foreign power into the affairs of a sovereign state for the purpose of regime change.
That is why the Iraqi military was disarmed, to prevent the restoration of Saddam. Up until the execution of Saddam such a possibilty was recognized. That is what the Sunni resistance against the United States occupation was all about. Had the United States pulled out immediately, while Saddam was still alive, the Sunni's would have restored Saddam to power.
Saddam's government did secure the rights of liberty and property, and derived it's powers from the consent of the governed just as much as any other government does. It protected the rights of the Sunni constituency, protected the property of the Sunni constituency, and had the consent of the Sunni constituency. That constituency of the Iraqi people makes Saddam's government just as legitimate as the constituency of the Republican Party. No other nation in the world would interfere in the internal affairs of the United States and invade for the purpose of a regime change based on a revolt or request by the Democrats, or any other segment of the American population. It would be seen as an illegal and immoral act under international law.
Your interpretation of the rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independance is comparing apples and oranges. The over riding principle of the Declaration of Independance was that it represented, both through the elected legislatures of ALL of the 13 American Colonies, and through each legislatures designed signatories, the grievances of ALL 13 colonies. It was not a declaration of only a segment of the population.
It wasn't signed by one colony, it wasn't signed by a minority of colonies, it wasn't signed by a majority of colonies, IT WAS SIGNED BY A CONSENSUS OF ALL THE COLONIES. That was a very important distinction at the time because it allowed for legitimate international recognition of the revolution.
Your arguement is that if a segment of a sovereign nation requests assistance in overthrowing a government that they feel is tyranical, the United States has the obligation under the Declaration of Independance to respond militarily and overthrow that regime. That is a receipe for toppling every single legitimate government in the world. Under your scenario, we should be invading Israel and liberating the Palestinian people.
You are twisting and subverting the Declaration of Independance to make it a document which justifies overthrowing any regime any where in the world that has even an insignificant amount of it's population that denounces their government as a tyranny. It doesn't work that way.
And, by the way, your use of the word "gotcha" is still not a magic "I win" button.
Oh well, at least you WERE arguing decently. there you go again with that "I win" button crap. I'll try with you the next time you try and be civilized. Bummer, it was nice for a moment.
You went first with the "gotcha" statement. I responded in kind. You reap what you sow.
Gotcha means, "I understand what you are saying." that did not deserve YOU getting personal. Sorry, once again you have shown you have no real desire to have a reasonable discussion. Dang, and I was so looking forward to what might have been a real debate. Oh well.
Maybe someday a liberal will rise who knows how decent people argue.
Perhaps one day you will learn not to play semantics games by taking a cheap shot with a double entendre.
Originally posted by Fishermage Dictatorships are not legitimate countries. Any country or any individual for that that matter has every right to remove any dictator from power, morally speaking. All free countries should be spreading freedom throughout the world. Pity so many are also moral cowards. It wasn't just America that did this -- we only led this. Where is the "empire?" I see us pulling out, as promised.
Of course dictatorships are not legitimate countries, presidents and prime ministers are not legitimate countries either. They are people, governments. You argue apples and oranges.
A dictatorship is just as legitimate a government as a republic, democracy, theocracy, or oligarchy. Each of these forms of government holds power through the will of the people. No dictator controls his country single handed, he/she forms coalitions to enjoy the support of enough of the populace to retain power.
Governments are not controlled by one person. George W Bush does not control the United States and enjoy the support from 100% of the population. He holds his control based on the support of the Republican Party, a coalition of Republican voters, and a coalition of the Republican Congress.
Saddam enjoyed his position through the support of the Sunni Iraqis. Had it not been Saddam, it would have been another Sunni, possibly from the military. Primarily because a Kurd could not form a coalition to retain power in the country, and the Shiites were/are poorly positioned to govern.
To paraphrase Ghandi...."There go my people, I must hurry to get in front of them, for I am their leader".
I other words you do not believe in our declaration of Independence. If the people are kept in check under a reign of terror, it is the will of the people that they have done so -- if exiles are begging to end the rape of their families -- F'em, they want it like that.
Once again you are comparing apples and oranges. The Declaration of Independance does not call for a foreign nation to initiate hostile action against another nation for the purpose of regime change.
The Declaration of Independance does recognize the right of a people to rise up against their OWN government.
That is why French interferance in the revolution was delayed. That is why foreign intervention in many revolutions is delayed. To determine whether the minority seeking to overthrow their government represent the will of the majority and have just cause.
Under your scenario, we should be liberating Mindinoa from the Phillipines, the Basques from Spain, and the Palestininans from Israel, invading Zimbabwe, and every country in which a minority of the populace does not support their own government.
The people of Iraq WERE rising up in opposition to Saddam, so were the people inside Iraq. We helped them. I am talking about whether it is morally right to help0 them free themselves or not. I say it is, and the declaration's language supports me on that.
If governments purpose is to secure the rights of life liberty and property, and IF they derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, THEN Saddam's regime was unlawful. IF that is the case and his people in exile begged us to help them overthrow him and restore democracy (they did), we have every moral right to help them do so. We did so.
I am not making any comparisons. I am deciding that the rights enshrined in the declaration are universal. You don't believe that. Gotcha.
The people of Iraq were NOT rising up in opposition to Saddam, only certain segments of the population rose up in opposition to Saddam. That does not warrant intervention by a foreign power into the affairs of a sovereign state for the purpose of regime change.
That is why the Iraqi military was disarmed, to prevent the restoration of Saddam. Up until the execution of Saddam such a possibilty was recognized. That is what the Sunni resistance against the United States occupation was all about. Had the United States pulled out immediately, while Saddam was still alive, the Sunni's would have restored Saddam to power.
Saddam's government did secure the rights of liberty and property, and derived it's powers from the consent of the governed just as much as any other government does. It protected the rights of the Sunni constituency, protected the property of the Sunni constituency, and had the consent of the Sunni constituency. That constituency of the Iraqi people makes Saddam's government just as legitimate as the constituency of the Republican Party. No other nation in the world would interfere in the internal affairs of the United States and invade for the purpose of a regime change based on a revolt or request by the Democrats, or any other segment of the American population. It would be seen as an illegal and immoral act under international law.
Your interpretation of the rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independance is comparing apples and oranges. The over riding principle of the Declaration of Independance was that it represented, both through the elected legislatures of ALL of the 13 American Colonies, and through each legislatures designed signatories, the grievances of ALL 13 colonies. It was not a declaration of only a segment of the population.
It wasn't signed by one colony, it wasn't signed by a minority of colonies, it wasn't signed by a majority of colonies, IT WAS SIGNED BY A CONSENSUS OF ALL THE COLONIES. That was a very important distinction at the time because it allowed for legitimate international recognition of the revolution.
Your arguement is that if a segment of a sovereign nation requests assistance in overthrowing a government that they feel is tyranical, the United States has the obligation under the Declaration of Independance to respond militarily and overthrow that regime. That is a receipe for toppling every single legitimate government in the world. Under your scenario, we should be invading Israel and liberating the Palestinian people.
You are twisting and subverting the Declaration of Independance to make it a document which justifies overthrowing any regime any where in the world that has even an insignificant amount of it's population that denounces their government as a tyranny. It doesn't work that way.
And, by the way, your use of the word "gotcha" is still not a magic "I win" button.
Oh well, at least you WERE arguing decently. there you go again with that "I win" button crap. I'll try with you the next time you try and be civilized. Bummer, it was nice for a moment.
You went first with the "gotcha" statement. I responded in kind. You reap what you sow.
Gotcha means, "I understand what you are saying." that did not deserve YOU getting personal. Sorry, once again you have shown you have no real desire to have a reasonable discussion. Dang, and I was so looking forward to what might have been a real debate. Oh well.
Maybe someday a liberal will rise who knows how decent people argue.
Perhaps one day you will learn not to play semantics games by taking a cheap shot with a double entendre.
Actually, the only semantic game in our debate was when you acted as if there was a meterial difference between a cease-fire agreement (which we dictated upon victory) and a surrender agreement.
Also there was no possible way to take "gotcha" as meaning "I caught you" in that context. Only someone who is looking for a fight would do that. Well, since I don't want to get into the usual mix-up with the mods by continuing am argument with someone who merely wants to start a flame war and doesn't want to have a real discussion, I'll bid you adieu.
Again, I am calling out for a liberal who knows how decent people argue.
I wonder if this is the first time a shoe has been thrown at an american president? At least he dodged it, he'd do well on my highschool's dodge ball team I think thats all he'll be rememberd for in history, the president who dodged a shoe, and started a couple wars.
Yes but not the rights war. Im thinking a good size war is in order. Between real countries where th enemy is clear. After all WW2 fixed the economy(The New Deal basicly did shit). War is the best thing to fix a economy and I think some european countries need to learn their place after all this trash talking because of the Iraq war(dont even pretend like they could stand a chance itd be over in a week or so with clear targets)
And for those who can't tell sarcasm, no I don't think we should go to war with Europe.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day. And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
Its amazing that some still write the history like they want. The aim or the reason for the Iraw invasion was not to help or to free iraqi people. Did you forget all that the reason was that the US government believed that Hussein was involved with Al Quaida and it was believed that massive destruction weapons was a threat ?
None of the reason was right, there were no massive destruction weapons and saddam was not involved with al quaida, the whole iraq war had nothing in common with 911. Not to mention that there was probably a high interest about the Oil ressources, about economical interests and guess what....much parts of it even failed. How many companies pulled out or just did not reached their financial goals in iraq. The press in the US was so biased at this time it was unbelievable, where were the criticial statements in this time...movies were produced i.e. 21 days to bagdad which are full of propaganda and lies.
In the last 8 years the bush government lost faith in the world, they told the world "either you are with us or against us", they refused international UN Resolutions and didnt care about it. The conflicts which arised brought the world problems which did not end until now and will still take years to solve them.
Why do you think Obama did win the elections, cause peopel want a change and this change is important. The good bye wishes from the houndred of thousands of iraqi civilian victims in form of two shoes is just a small act from one nervous journalist, but dont you think that bush deserves "at least" two shoes ?
Comments
Of course dictatorships are not legitimate countries, presidents and prime ministers are not legitimate countries either. They are people, governments. You argue apples and oranges.
A dictatorship is just as legitimate a government as a republic, democracy, theocracy, or oligarchy. Each of these forms of government holds power through the will of the people. No dictator controls his country single handed, he/she forms coalitions to enjoy the support of enough of the populace to retain power.
Governments are not controlled by one person. George W Bush does not control the United States and enjoy the support from 100% of the population. He holds his control based on the support of the Republican Party, a coalition of Republican voters, and a coalition of the Republican Congress.
Saddam enjoyed his position through the support of the Sunni Iraqis. Had it not been Saddam, it would have been another Sunni, possibly from the military. Primarily because a Kurd could not form a coalition to retain power in the country, and the Shiites were/are poorly positioned to govern.
To paraphrase Ghandi...."There go my people, I must hurry to get in front of them, for I am their leader".
I other words you do not believe in our declaration of Independence. If the people are kept in check under a reign of terror, it is the will of the people that they have done so -- if exiles are begging to end the rape of their families -- F'em, they want it like that.
Once again you are comparing apples and oranges. The Declaration of Independance does not call for a foreign nation to initiate hostile action against another nation for the purpose of regime change.
The Declaration of Independance does recognize the right of a people to rise up against their OWN government.
That is why French interferance in the revolution was delayed. That is why foreign intervention in many revolutions is delayed. To determine whether the minority seeking to overthrow their government represent the will of the majority and have just cause.
Under your scenario, we should be liberating Mindinoa from the Phillipines, the Basques from Spain, and the Palestininans from Israel, invading Zimbabwe, and every country in which a minority of the populace does not support their own government.
The problem with the Iraq war is that Iraq/Saddam was not engaged in the Jihad. Iraq/Saddam did not attack the World Trade Center. Iraq/Saddam was not fundamentalist Islam.
As I seem to recall, the war with fundamentalist Islam was with the Sunnis in Afghanistan. Bin Laden was harbored by the Taliban. Somewhere along the line this objective was lost, and Saddam/Iraq became the war against terrorism, the war against WMDs, then the war to liberate Iraq.
Then the motive jumped to the "Axis of Evil" a nice spin that left the Shiite Iranians wondering what happened. You see, Iran was not radical fundamentalist Islam, they were a target of radical fundamentalist Islam. Just as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, and the rest of the legitimate governments of the Muslim world are a target of fundamentalist Islam.
Before they come for you and yours, they want to unite them and theirs. We helped them in Iraq by toppling a government and creating a power vacuum.
The motives in Iraq were always fuzzy, as was the Wolkowicz/Rumsfeld post war plan.
No wonder he threw shoes.
Saddam was in clear violation of the terms of his surrender, he has openly decalred allegiance with teh Jihad (event though THEY thought he was socialist, secular garbage), and he was a clear convenient, strategically placed target -- the reasons we invaded were strategic, not moral.
We also created a honey trap, and it has worked. they flooded into the country, and we humiliated them. Exactly what we needed to do.
We have also proved that we could do something the jihad can not do -- end a tyranny and create a better place for Muslims. The Jihad have NOT done that -- we have.
Ask the Kurds how they feel about us -- there's an untold story for ya.
In the long run it will prove to have been wise in many ways. Watch. See you in two decades when you see.
The end of active hostilities
A peace conference was held in Iraqi territory occupied by the coalition. At the conference, Iraq won the approval of the use of armed helicopters on their side of the temporary border, ostensibly for government transit due to the damage done to civilian transportation. Soon after, these helicopters, and much of the Iraqi armed forces, were refocused toward fighting against a Shiite uprising in the south. The rebellions were encouraged on 2 February 1991 by a broadcast on CIA run radio station The Voice of Free Iraq broadcasting out of Saudi Arabia. The Arabic service of the Voice of America supported the uprising by stating that the rebellion was large and that they soon would be liberated from Hussein.[32]
In the North, Kurdish leaders took heart in American statements that they would support an uprising and began fighting, in the hopes of triggering a coup. However, when no American support was forthcoming, Iraqi generals remained loyal and brutally crushed the Kurdish troops. Millions of Kurds fled across the mountains to Kurdish areas of Turkey and Iran. These incidents would later result in no-fly zones being established in both the North and the South of Iraq. In Kuwait, the Emir was restored and suspected Iraqi collaborators were repressed. Eventually, over 400,000 people were expelled from the country, including a large number of Palestinians (due to their support of and collaboration with Hussein).
There was some criticism of the Bush administration for its decision to allow Saddam Hussein to remain in power, rather than pushing on to capture Baghdad and overthrowing his government. In their co-written 1998 book, A World Transformed, Bush and Brent Scowcroft argued that such a course would have fractured the alliance and would have had many unnecessary political and human costs associated with it.
In 1992, the United States Secretary of Defense during the war, Dick Cheney, made the same point:
I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home. And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.[33]
Instead of greater involvement of its own military, the United States hoped that Saddam Hussein would be overthrown in an internal coup d'état. The Central Intelligence Agency used its assets in Iraq to organize a revolt, but the Iraqi government defeated the effort.
On March 10, 1991, Operation Desert Storm began to move 540,000 American troops out of the Persian Gulf.
Explain why you believe there was a surrender document signed, and what provisions of this alledged surrendar document Saddam violated.
I also find it interesting that the first Gulf War was fought by a coalition, yet the United States took it unilaterally upon itself to determine that Iraq must be invaded, rather than wait for coalition support. Maybe George Herbet Walker Bush was just better at consensus building than George W Bush?
In regard to your "honey trap" and all the rest analogy, why couldn't that have been accomplished in Afghanistan? Also, it appears you are advocating the destruction through continual warfare of a sovereign country, to include deaths of the populace, as the legitimate strategy of the Iraq War, not "liberation" of a people from a dictator as you continually say.
I will say again, no wonder that Iraqi reporter threw his shoes.
The problem with the Iraq war is that Iraq/Saddam was not engaged in the Jihad. Iraq/Saddam did not attack the World Trade Center. Iraq/Saddam was not fundamentalist Islam.
As I seem to recall, the war with fundamentalist Islam was with the Sunnis in Afghanistan. Bin Laden was harbored by the Taliban. Somewhere along the line this objective was lost, and Saddam/Iraq became the war against terrorism, the war against WMDs, then the war to liberate Iraq.
Then the motive jumped to the "Axis of Evil" a nice spin that left the Shiite Iranians wondering what happened. You see, Iran was not radical fundamentalist Islam, they were a target of radical fundamentalist Islam. Just as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, and the rest of the legitimate governments of the Muslim world are a target of fundamentalist Islam.
Before they come for you and yours, they want to unite them and theirs. We helped them in Iraq by toppling a government and creating a power vacuum.
The motives in Iraq were always fuzzy, as was the Wolkowicz/Rumsfeld post war plan.
No wonder he threw shoes.
Saddam was in clear violation of the terms of his surrender, he has openly decalred allegiance with teh Jihad (event though THEY thought he was socialist, secular garbage), and he was a clear convenient, strategically placed target -- the reasons we invaded were strategic, not moral.
We also created a honey trap, and it has worked. they flooded into the country, and we humiliated them. Exactly what we needed to do.
We have also proved that we could do something the jihad can not do -- end a tyranny and create a better place for Muslims. The Jihad have NOT done that -- we have.
Ask the Kurds how they feel about us -- there's an untold story for ya.
In the long run it will prove to have been wise in many ways. Watch. See you in two decades when you see.
Honey trap LOL,Humiliated them,HAHA,so true its huge.
Sweden in deep problems they have alot more to worry about than "US" thats for-sure.Short video about the Sweden...the English starts about 1 minute into the video.
Iraq has 67 billion on had in cash,satellite on every roof,a theocracy on their border trying to destroy there nation,mainly because its threating their power base. The number of Democrcys is growing.We are under a UN mandate, this why the vote is needed to be able to stay with troops,the UN mandate ends next month.
Hmmm from that Video, and taking our friend's advice, it is time for the Swedes to pull out of Sweden.
I got as far as the 90% unemployment rate for Muslim immigrants. I think I can see where the problem lies......
As for Frodus comment that it is all too funny that we humiliated the Iraqi people in the process, yea, I'm sure the Iraqi people are just having barrel of laughs.
Interestingly, when I look in the backgrounds of the news stories coming out of Iraq, I have never seen a satellite on every roof. I do see the living conditions in Sadr City though, and note that there are still continuous problems with power and fresh water infrasturucture distribution.
Of course dictatorships are not legitimate countries, presidents and prime ministers are not legitimate countries either. They are people, governments. You argue apples and oranges.
A dictatorship is just as legitimate a government as a republic, democracy, theocracy, or oligarchy. Each of these forms of government holds power through the will of the people. No dictator controls his country single handed, he/she forms coalitions to enjoy the support of enough of the populace to retain power.
Governments are not controlled by one person. George W Bush does not control the United States and enjoy the support from 100% of the population. He holds his control based on the support of the Republican Party, a coalition of Republican voters, and a coalition of the Republican Congress.
Saddam enjoyed his position through the support of the Sunni Iraqis. Had it not been Saddam, it would have been another Sunni, possibly from the military. Primarily because a Kurd could not form a coalition to retain power in the country, and the Shiites were/are poorly positioned to govern.
To paraphrase Ghandi...."There go my people, I must hurry to get in front of them, for I am their leader".
I other words you do not believe in our declaration of Independence. If the people are kept in check under a reign of terror, it is the will of the people that they have done so -- if exiles are begging to end the rape of their families -- F'em, they want it like that.
Once again you are comparing apples and oranges. The Declaration of Independance does not call for a foreign nation to initiate hostile action against another nation for the purpose of regime change.
The Declaration of Independance does recognize the right of a people to rise up against their OWN government.
That is why French interferance in the revolution was delayed. That is why foreign intervention in many revolutions is delayed. To determine whether the minority seeking to overthrow their government represent the will of the majority and have just cause.
Under your scenario, we should be liberating Mindinoa from the Phillipines, the Basques from Spain, and the Palestininans from Israel, invading Zimbabwe, and every country in which a minority of the populace does not support their own government.
The people of Iraq WERE rising up in opposition to Saddam, so were the people inside Iraq. We helped them. I am talking about whether it is morally right to help0 them free themselves or not. I say it is, and the declaration's language supports me on that.
If governments purpose is to secure the rights of life liberty and property, and IF they derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, THEN Saddam's regime was unlawful. IF that is the case and his people in exile begged us to help them overthrow him and restore democracy (they did), we have every moral right to help them do so. We did so.
I am not making any comparisons. I am deciding that the rights enshrined in the declaration are universal. You don't believe that. Gotcha.
fishermage.blogspot.com
The problem with the Iraq war is that Iraq/Saddam was not engaged in the Jihad. Iraq/Saddam did not attack the World Trade Center. Iraq/Saddam was not fundamentalist Islam.
As I seem to recall, the war with fundamentalist Islam was with the Sunnis in Afghanistan. Bin Laden was harbored by the Taliban. Somewhere along the line this objective was lost, and Saddam/Iraq became the war against terrorism, the war against WMDs, then the war to liberate Iraq.
Then the motive jumped to the "Axis of Evil" a nice spin that left the Shiite Iranians wondering what happened. You see, Iran was not radical fundamentalist Islam, they were a target of radical fundamentalist Islam. Just as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, and the rest of the legitimate governments of the Muslim world are a target of fundamentalist Islam.
Before they come for you and yours, they want to unite them and theirs. We helped them in Iraq by toppling a government and creating a power vacuum.
The motives in Iraq were always fuzzy, as was the Wolkowicz/Rumsfeld post war plan.
No wonder he threw shoes.
Saddam was in clear violation of the terms of his surrender, he has openly decalred allegiance with teh Jihad (event though THEY thought he was socialist, secular garbage), and he was a clear convenient, strategically placed target -- the reasons we invaded were strategic, not moral.
We also created a honey trap, and it has worked. they flooded into the country, and we humiliated them. Exactly what we needed to do.
We have also proved that we could do something the jihad can not do -- end a tyranny and create a better place for Muslims. The Jihad have NOT done that -- we have.
Ask the Kurds how they feel about us -- there's an untold story for ya.
In the long run it will prove to have been wise in many ways. Watch. See you in two decades when you see.
The end of active hostilities
A peace conference was held in Iraqi territory occupied by the coalition. At the conference, Iraq won the approval of the use of armed helicopters on their side of the temporary border, ostensibly for government transit due to the damage done to civilian transportation. Soon after, these helicopters, and much of the Iraqi armed forces, were refocused toward fighting against a Shiite uprising in the south. The rebellions were encouraged on 2 February 1991 by a broadcast on CIA run radio station The Voice of Free Iraq broadcasting out of Saudi Arabia. The Arabic service of the Voice of America supported the uprising by stating that the rebellion was large and that they soon would be liberated from Hussein.[32]
In the North, Kurdish leaders took heart in American statements that they would support an uprising and began fighting, in the hopes of triggering a coup. However, when no American support was forthcoming, Iraqi generals remained loyal and brutally crushed the Kurdish troops. Millions of Kurds fled across the mountains to Kurdish areas of Turkey and Iran. These incidents would later result in no-fly zones being established in both the North and the South of Iraq. In Kuwait, the Emir was restored and suspected Iraqi collaborators were repressed. Eventually, over 400,000 people were expelled from the country, including a large number of Palestinians (due to their support of and collaboration with Hussein).
There was some criticism of the Bush administration for its decision to allow Saddam Hussein to remain in power, rather than pushing on to capture Baghdad and overthrowing his government. In their co-written 1998 book, A World Transformed, Bush and Brent Scowcroft argued that such a course would have fractured the alliance and would have had many unnecessary political and human costs associated with it.
In 1992, the United States Secretary of Defense during the war, Dick Cheney, made the same point:
I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home. And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.[33]
Instead of greater involvement of its own military, the United States hoped that Saddam Hussein would be overthrown in an internal coup d'état. The Central Intelligence Agency used its assets in Iraq to organize a revolt, but the Iraqi government defeated the effort.
On March 10, 1991, Operation Desert Storm began to move 540,000 American troops out of the Persian Gulf.
Explain why you believe there was a surrender document signed, and what provisions of this alledged surrendar document Saddam violated.
I also find it interesting that the first Gulf War was fought by a coalition, yet the United States took it unilaterally upon itself to determine that Iraq must be invaded, rather than wait for coalition support. Maybe George Herbet Walker Bush was just better at consensus building than George W Bush?
In regard to your "honey trap" and all the rest analogy, why couldn't that have been accomplished in Afghanistan? Also, it appears you are advocating the destruction through continual warfare of a sovereign country, to include deaths of the populace, as the legitimate strategy of the Iraq War, not "liberation" of a people from a dictator as you continually say.
I will say again, no wonder that Iraqi reporter threw his shoes.
There was a cease-fire agreement, and they were in clear violation of it.
The war against Iraq was fought with a coalition as well. GHW Bush WAS better at building a consensus, but that's of course not relevant to the discussion. Neither is the coalition red herring, Either it was justifiable or it was not -- numbers agreeing means nothing.
www.truthaboutiraq.org/index.php/Legality_Of_The_Iraq_War
We are ALSO doing this in Afghanistan.
These are SIDE benefits of the basic strategy, which is to spread liberty and to create allies in strategically placed countries within the "Muslim world." I put that term in quotes because that is how many Muslms see it. I do not see religions as being capable of holding territory. The Jihad does.
I must take this time to thank you for behaving decently here! This is nice!
fishermage.blogspot.com
The problem with the Iraq war is that Iraq/Saddam was not engaged in the Jihad. Iraq/Saddam did not attack the World Trade Center. Iraq/Saddam was not fundamentalist Islam.
As I seem to recall, the war with fundamentalist Islam was with the Sunnis in Afghanistan. Bin Laden was harbored by the Taliban. Somewhere along the line this objective was lost, and Saddam/Iraq became the war against terrorism, the war against WMDs, then the war to liberate Iraq.
Then the motive jumped to the "Axis of Evil" a nice spin that left the Shiite Iranians wondering what happened. You see, Iran was not radical fundamentalist Islam, they were a target of radical fundamentalist Islam. Just as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, and the rest of the legitimate governments of the Muslim world are a target of fundamentalist Islam.
Before they come for you and yours, they want to unite them and theirs. We helped them in Iraq by toppling a government and creating a power vacuum.
The motives in Iraq were always fuzzy, as was the Wolkowicz/Rumsfeld post war plan.
No wonder he threw shoes.
Saddam was in clear violation of the terms of his surrender, he has openly decalred allegiance with teh Jihad (event though THEY thought he was socialist, secular garbage), and he was a clear convenient, strategically placed target -- the reasons we invaded were strategic, not moral.
We also created a honey trap, and it has worked. they flooded into the country, and we humiliated them. Exactly what we needed to do.
We have also proved that we could do something the jihad can not do -- end a tyranny and create a better place for Muslims. The Jihad have NOT done that -- we have.
Ask the Kurds how they feel about us -- there's an untold story for ya.
In the long run it will prove to have been wise in many ways. Watch. See you in two decades when you see.
Honey trap LOL,Humiliated them,HAHA,so true its huge.
Sweden in deep problems they have alot more to worry about than "US" thats for-sure.Short video about the Sweden...the English starts about 1 minute into the video.
Iraq has 67 billion on had in cash,satellite on every roof,a theocracy on their border trying to destroy there nation,mainly because its threating their power base. The number of Democrcys is growing.We are under a UN mandate, this why the vote is needed to be able to stay with troops,the UN mandate ends next month.
Hmmm from that Video, and taking our friend's advice, it is time for the Swedes to pull out of Sweden.
I got as far as the 90% unemployment rate for Muslim immigrants. I think I can see where the problem lies......
As for Frodus comment that it is all too funny that we humiliated the Iraqi people in the process, yea, I'm sure the Iraqi people are just having barrel of laughs.
Interestingly, when I look in the backgrounds of the news stories coming out of Iraq, I have never seen a satellite on every roof. I do see the living conditions in Sadr City though, and note that there are still continuous problems with power and fresh water infrasturucture distribution.
I was being facetious there...and yes, I know that 90% unemployment has something to do with the problems, although it is hard to establish a real correllation between Jihadism and employment. It seems the JIhad uses every excuse possible to propogandize their goals, and most if not many JIhadis come from the middle and upper classes -- much like Communism. It was sold as a movement of the lower class, but upper class people were actually behind it as well.
The Jihad has incorporated the method of the Marxists and the zeal of religion. It is in fact the most challenging enemy we have ever faced -- much more challenging that either communism or Nazism.
I don't see Frodus saying that it was funny that we humiliated the Iraqi people, but he found it funny that we humiliated the Jihadist attempt to take the country from us. I don't find it funny at all -- I just find it true, especially if you read their writings about their loss in Iraq.
fishermage.blogspot.com
If nothing else this situation has at least proven that the Hollywood films showing secret service agents throwing themselves in front of a president to catch a bullet are a total fabrication.
These guys wouldn't even catch a shoe for their president let alone a bullet.
I support Belgiums efforts to get noticed ... at all.
Of course dictatorships are not legitimate countries, presidents and prime ministers are not legitimate countries either. They are people, governments. You argue apples and oranges.
A dictatorship is just as legitimate a government as a republic, democracy, theocracy, or oligarchy. Each of these forms of government holds power through the will of the people. No dictator controls his country single handed, he/she forms coalitions to enjoy the support of enough of the populace to retain power.
Governments are not controlled by one person. George W Bush does not control the United States and enjoy the support from 100% of the population. He holds his control based on the support of the Republican Party, a coalition of Republican voters, and a coalition of the Republican Congress.
Saddam enjoyed his position through the support of the Sunni Iraqis. Had it not been Saddam, it would have been another Sunni, possibly from the military. Primarily because a Kurd could not form a coalition to retain power in the country, and the Shiites were/are poorly positioned to govern.
To paraphrase Ghandi...."There go my people, I must hurry to get in front of them, for I am their leader".
I other words you do not believe in our declaration of Independence. If the people are kept in check under a reign of terror, it is the will of the people that they have done so -- if exiles are begging to end the rape of their families -- F'em, they want it like that.
Once again you are comparing apples and oranges. The Declaration of Independance does not call for a foreign nation to initiate hostile action against another nation for the purpose of regime change.
The Declaration of Independance does recognize the right of a people to rise up against their OWN government.
That is why French interferance in the revolution was delayed. That is why foreign intervention in many revolutions is delayed. To determine whether the minority seeking to overthrow their government represent the will of the majority and have just cause.
Under your scenario, we should be liberating Mindinoa from the Phillipines, the Basques from Spain, and the Palestininans from Israel, invading Zimbabwe, and every country in which a minority of the populace does not support their own government.
The people of Iraq WERE rising up in opposition to Saddam, so were the people inside Iraq. We helped them. I am talking about whether it is morally right to help0 them free themselves or not. I say it is, and the declaration's language supports me on that.
If governments purpose is to secure the rights of life liberty and property, and IF they derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, THEN Saddam's regime was unlawful. IF that is the case and his people in exile begged us to help them overthrow him and restore democracy (they did), we have every moral right to help them do so. We did so.
I am not making any comparisons. I am deciding that the rights enshrined in the declaration are universal. You don't believe that. Gotcha.
The people of Iraq were NOT rising up in opposition to Saddam, only certain segments of the population rose up in opposition to Saddam. That does not warrant intervention by a foreign power into the affairs of a sovereign state for the purpose of regime change.
That is why the Iraqi military was disarmed, to prevent the restoration of Saddam. Up until the execution of Saddam such a possibilty was recognized. That is what the Sunni resistance against the United States occupation was all about. Had the United States pulled out immediately, while Saddam was still alive, the Sunni's would have restored Saddam to power.
Saddam's government did secure the rights of liberty and property, and derived it's powers from the consent of the governed just as much as any other government does. It protected the rights of the Sunni constituency, protected the property of the Sunni constituency, and had the consent of the Sunni constituency. That constituency of the Iraqi people makes Saddam's government just as legitimate as the constituency of the Republican Party makes George W Bush's government legitimate. No other nation in the world would interfere in the internal affairs of the United States and invade for the purpose of a regime change based on a revolt or request by the Democrats, or any other segment of the American population. It would be seen as an illegal and immoral act under international law.
Your interpretation of the rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independance is comparing apples and oranges. The over riding principle of the Declaration of Independance was that it represented, both through the elected legislatures of ALL of the 13 American Colonies, and through each legislatures designed signatories, the grievances of ALL 13 colonies. It was not a declaration of only a segment of the population.
It wasn't signed by one colony, it wasn't signed by a minority of colonies, it wasn't signed by a majority of colonies, IT WAS SIGNED BY A CONSENSUS OF ALL THE COLONIES. That was a very important distinction at the time because it allowed for legitimate international recognition of the revolution.
Your arguement is that if a segment of a sovereign nation requests assistance in overthrowing a government that they feel is tyranical, the United States has the obligation under the Declaration of Independance to respond militarily and overthrow that regime. That is a receipe for toppling every single legitimate government in the world. Under your scenario, we should be invading Israel and liberating the Palestinian people.
You are twisting and subverting the Declaration of Independance to make it a document which justifies overthrowing any regime any where in the world that has even an insignificant amount of it's population that denounces their government as a tyranny. It doesn't work that way.
And, by the way, your use of the word "gotcha" is still not a magic "I win" button.
The problem with the Iraq war is that Iraq/Saddam was not engaged in the Jihad. Iraq/Saddam did not attack the World Trade Center. Iraq/Saddam was not fundamentalist Islam.
As I seem to recall, the war with fundamentalist Islam was with the Sunnis in Afghanistan. Bin Laden was harbored by the Taliban. Somewhere along the line this objective was lost, and Saddam/Iraq became the war against terrorism, the war against WMDs, then the war to liberate Iraq.
Then the motive jumped to the "Axis of Evil" a nice spin that left the Shiite Iranians wondering what happened. You see, Iran was not radical fundamentalist Islam, they were a target of radical fundamentalist Islam. Just as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, and the rest of the legitimate governments of the Muslim world are a target of fundamentalist Islam.
Before they come for you and yours, they want to unite them and theirs. We helped them in Iraq by toppling a government and creating a power vacuum.
The motives in Iraq were always fuzzy, as was the Wolkowicz/Rumsfeld post war plan.
No wonder he threw shoes.
Saddam was in clear violation of the terms of his surrender, he has openly decalred allegiance with teh Jihad (event though THEY thought he was socialist, secular garbage), and he was a clear convenient, strategically placed target -- the reasons we invaded were strategic, not moral.
We also created a honey trap, and it has worked. they flooded into the country, and we humiliated them. Exactly what we needed to do.
We have also proved that we could do something the jihad can not do -- end a tyranny and create a better place for Muslims. The Jihad have NOT done that -- we have.
Ask the Kurds how they feel about us -- there's an untold story for ya.
In the long run it will prove to have been wise in many ways. Watch. See you in two decades when you see.
The end of active hostilities
A peace conference was held in Iraqi territory occupied by the coalition. At the conference, Iraq won the approval of the use of armed helicopters on their side of the temporary border, ostensibly for government transit due to the damage done to civilian transportation. Soon after, these helicopters, and much of the Iraqi armed forces, were refocused toward fighting against a Shiite uprising in the south. The rebellions were encouraged on 2 February 1991 by a broadcast on CIA run radio station The Voice of Free Iraq broadcasting out of Saudi Arabia. The Arabic service of the Voice of America supported the uprising by stating that the rebellion was large and that they soon would be liberated from Hussein.[32]
In the North, Kurdish leaders took heart in American statements that they would support an uprising and began fighting, in the hopes of triggering a coup. However, when no American support was forthcoming, Iraqi generals remained loyal and brutally crushed the Kurdish troops. Millions of Kurds fled across the mountains to Kurdish areas of Turkey and Iran. These incidents would later result in no-fly zones being established in both the North and the South of Iraq. In Kuwait, the Emir was restored and suspected Iraqi collaborators were repressed. Eventually, over 400,000 people were expelled from the country, including a large number of Palestinians (due to their support of and collaboration with Hussein).
There was some criticism of the Bush administration for its decision to allow Saddam Hussein to remain in power, rather than pushing on to capture Baghdad and overthrowing his government. In their co-written 1998 book, A World Transformed, Bush and Brent Scowcroft argued that such a course would have fractured the alliance and would have had many unnecessary political and human costs associated with it.
In 1992, the United States Secretary of Defense during the war, Dick Cheney, made the same point:
I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home. And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.[33]
Instead of greater involvement of its own military, the United States hoped that Saddam Hussein would be overthrown in an internal coup d'état. The Central Intelligence Agency used its assets in Iraq to organize a revolt, but the Iraqi government defeated the effort.
On March 10, 1991, Operation Desert Storm began to move 540,000 American troops out of the Persian Gulf.
Explain why you believe there was a surrender document signed, and what provisions of this alledged surrendar document Saddam violated.
I also find it interesting that the first Gulf War was fought by a coalition, yet the United States took it unilaterally upon itself to determine that Iraq must be invaded, rather than wait for coalition support. Maybe George Herbet Walker Bush was just better at consensus building than George W Bush?
In regard to your "honey trap" and all the rest analogy, why couldn't that have been accomplished in Afghanistan? Also, it appears you are advocating the destruction through continual warfare of a sovereign country, to include deaths of the populace, as the legitimate strategy of the Iraq War, not "liberation" of a people from a dictator as you continually say.
I will say again, no wonder that Iraqi reporter threw his shoes.
There was a cease-fire agreement, and they were in clear violation of it.
The war against Iraq was fought with a coalition as well. GHW Bush WAS better at building a consensus, but that's of course not relevant to the discussion. Neither is the coalition red herring, Either it was justifiable or it was not -- numbers agreeing means nothing.
www.truthaboutiraq.org/index.php/Legality_Of_The_Iraq_War
We are ALSO doing this in Afghanistan.
These are SIDE benefits of the basic strategy, which is to spread liberty and to create allies in strategically placed countries within the "Muslim world." I put that term in quotes because that is how many Muslms see it. I do not see religions as being capable of holding territory. The Jihad does.
I must take this time to thank you for behaving decently here! This is nice!
Thank you for acknowledging that there was no surrender document ever signed.
I remember the coalition George W Bush put together. It occurred as a result of Secretary of State Colin Powell going up before the United Nations and presenting pictures of an alledged mobile weapons lab, or smoke, mirrors, and distortions. Funny how Colin Powell didn't stick around after he was used to spread disinformation to justify an illegal regime change. It was a coalition formed after the decision to invade had been made, for the sake of covering our ass. It comes in handy right about now, as we argue on the forums doesn't it? But it was always an American driven train. It was pulling out of the station, regardless of who was aboard.
I don't consider a coalition comprised of members who feel they have to make a show of their flag to stay in the good graces of an ally to be a legitimate coaltion. Where are they all now? Were they true believers in 'the cause"?
As to inspections, Saddam complied with the inspectors, he allowed them access, allowed them to conduct their inspections, however they were not finding anything. No matter how hard they looked, they never found anything. No matter what demands were placed on him, to rummage through his dirty underwear every morning, to inspect his girlfriends IUDs, to checking his palaces, cars, gas stations, car washes, etc, no WMDs were every found. Why was that? Maybe Saddam just grew tired of it all, and thought "enough is enough"? How could Saddam ever prove a negative, that he had no WMDs?
After a certain point the inspections become pointless. The inspectors could have searched for a thousand years for Saddam's WMDs, and the result would have been the same.
Side benefits? Name me which Muslim country in the region has decided to become an ally of the United States as a result of the Iraq war?
If anything, they have learned not to invite us in. We make terrible guests, trash their house, insult their family, and never go home. Why do you think this guy threw his shoes at Bush, because he liked him and though Dubya could use the footwear as a gift?
And I appreciate your appreciation. Just lay off the "gotcha" terms and quit trying to use an "I win" button.
Of course dictatorships are not legitimate countries, presidents and prime ministers are not legitimate countries either. They are people, governments. You argue apples and oranges.
A dictatorship is just as legitimate a government as a republic, democracy, theocracy, or oligarchy. Each of these forms of government holds power through the will of the people. No dictator controls his country single handed, he/she forms coalitions to enjoy the support of enough of the populace to retain power.
Governments are not controlled by one person. George W Bush does not control the United States and enjoy the support from 100% of the population. He holds his control based on the support of the Republican Party, a coalition of Republican voters, and a coalition of the Republican Congress.
Saddam enjoyed his position through the support of the Sunni Iraqis. Had it not been Saddam, it would have been another Sunni, possibly from the military. Primarily because a Kurd could not form a coalition to retain power in the country, and the Shiites were/are poorly positioned to govern.
To paraphrase Ghandi...."There go my people, I must hurry to get in front of them, for I am their leader".
I other words you do not believe in our declaration of Independence. If the people are kept in check under a reign of terror, it is the will of the people that they have done so -- if exiles are begging to end the rape of their families -- F'em, they want it like that.
Once again you are comparing apples and oranges. The Declaration of Independance does not call for a foreign nation to initiate hostile action against another nation for the purpose of regime change.
The Declaration of Independance does recognize the right of a people to rise up against their OWN government.
That is why French interferance in the revolution was delayed. That is why foreign intervention in many revolutions is delayed. To determine whether the minority seeking to overthrow their government represent the will of the majority and have just cause.
Under your scenario, we should be liberating Mindinoa from the Phillipines, the Basques from Spain, and the Palestininans from Israel, invading Zimbabwe, and every country in which a minority of the populace does not support their own government.
The people of Iraq WERE rising up in opposition to Saddam, so were the people inside Iraq. We helped them. I am talking about whether it is morally right to help0 them free themselves or not. I say it is, and the declaration's language supports me on that.
If governments purpose is to secure the rights of life liberty and property, and IF they derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, THEN Saddam's regime was unlawful. IF that is the case and his people in exile begged us to help them overthrow him and restore democracy (they did), we have every moral right to help them do so. We did so.
I am not making any comparisons. I am deciding that the rights enshrined in the declaration are universal. You don't believe that. Gotcha.
The people of Iraq were NOT rising up in opposition to Saddam, only certain segments of the population rose up in opposition to Saddam. That does not warrant intervention by a foreign power into the affairs of a sovereign state for the purpose of regime change.
That is why the Iraqi military was disarmed, to prevent the restoration of Saddam. Up until the execution of Saddam such a possibilty was recognized. That is what the Sunni resistance against the United States occupation was all about. Had the United States pulled out immediately, while Saddam was still alive, the Sunni's would have restored Saddam to power.
Saddam's government did secure the rights of liberty and property, and derived it's powers from the consent of the governed just as much as any other government does. It protected the rights of the Sunni constituency, protected the property of the Sunni constituency, and had the consent of the Sunni constituency. That constituency of the Iraqi people makes Saddam's government just as legitimate as the constituency of the Republican Party. No other nation in the world would interfere in the internal affairs of the United States and invade for the purpose of a regime change based on a revolt or request by the Democrats, or any other segment of the American population. It would be seen as an illegal and immoral act under international law.
Your interpretation of the rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independance is comparing apples and oranges. The over riding principle of the Declaration of Independance was that it represented, both through the elected legislatures of ALL of the 13 American Colonies, and through each legislatures designed signatories, the grievances of ALL 13 colonies. It was not a declaration of only a segment of the population.
It wasn't signed by one colony, it wasn't signed by a minority of colonies, it wasn't signed by a majority of colonies, IT WAS SIGNED BY A CONSENSUS OF ALL THE COLONIES. That was a very important distinction at the time because it allowed for legitimate international recognition of the revolution.
Your arguement is that if a segment of a sovereign nation requests assistance in overthrowing a government that they feel is tyranical, the United States has the obligation under the Declaration of Independance to respond militarily and overthrow that regime. That is a receipe for toppling every single legitimate government in the world. Under your scenario, we should be invading Israel and liberating the Palestinian people.
You are twisting and subverting the Declaration of Independance to make it a document which justifies overthrowing any regime any where in the world that has even an insignificant amount of it's population that denounces their government as a tyranny. It doesn't work that way.
And, by the way, your use of the word "gotcha" is still not a magic "I win" button.
Oh well, at least you WERE arguing decently. there you go again with that "I win" button crap. I'll try with you the next time you try and be civilized. Bummer, it was nice for a moment.
fishermage.blogspot.com
The problem with the Iraq war is that Iraq/Saddam was not engaged in the Jihad. Iraq/Saddam did not attack the World Trade Center. Iraq/Saddam was not fundamentalist Islam.
As I seem to recall, the war with fundamentalist Islam was with the Sunnis in Afghanistan. Bin Laden was harbored by the Taliban. Somewhere along the line this objective was lost, and Saddam/Iraq became the war against terrorism, the war against WMDs, then the war to liberate Iraq.
Then the motive jumped to the "Axis of Evil" a nice spin that left the Shiite Iranians wondering what happened. You see, Iran was not radical fundamentalist Islam, they were a target of radical fundamentalist Islam. Just as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Pakistan, and the rest of the legitimate governments of the Muslim world are a target of fundamentalist Islam.
Before they come for you and yours, they want to unite them and theirs. We helped them in Iraq by toppling a government and creating a power vacuum.
The motives in Iraq were always fuzzy, as was the Wolkowicz/Rumsfeld post war plan.
No wonder he threw shoes.
Saddam was in clear violation of the terms of his surrender, he has openly decalred allegiance with teh Jihad (event though THEY thought he was socialist, secular garbage), and he was a clear convenient, strategically placed target -- the reasons we invaded were strategic, not moral.
We also created a honey trap, and it has worked. they flooded into the country, and we humiliated them. Exactly what we needed to do.
We have also proved that we could do something the jihad can not do -- end a tyranny and create a better place for Muslims. The Jihad have NOT done that -- we have.
Ask the Kurds how they feel about us -- there's an untold story for ya.
In the long run it will prove to have been wise in many ways. Watch. See you in two decades when you see.
The end of active hostilities
A peace conference was held in Iraqi territory occupied by the coalition. At the conference, Iraq won the approval of the use of armed helicopters on their side of the temporary border, ostensibly for government transit due to the damage done to civilian transportation. Soon after, these helicopters, and much of the Iraqi armed forces, were refocused toward fighting against a Shiite uprising in the south. The rebellions were encouraged on 2 February 1991 by a broadcast on CIA run radio station The Voice of Free Iraq broadcasting out of Saudi Arabia. The Arabic service of the Voice of America supported the uprising by stating that the rebellion was large and that they soon would be liberated from Hussein.[32]
In the North, Kurdish leaders took heart in American statements that they would support an uprising and began fighting, in the hopes of triggering a coup. However, when no American support was forthcoming, Iraqi generals remained loyal and brutally crushed the Kurdish troops. Millions of Kurds fled across the mountains to Kurdish areas of Turkey and Iran. These incidents would later result in no-fly zones being established in both the North and the South of Iraq. In Kuwait, the Emir was restored and suspected Iraqi collaborators were repressed. Eventually, over 400,000 people were expelled from the country, including a large number of Palestinians (due to their support of and collaboration with Hussein).
There was some criticism of the Bush administration for its decision to allow Saddam Hussein to remain in power, rather than pushing on to capture Baghdad and overthrowing his government. In their co-written 1998 book, A World Transformed, Bush and Brent Scowcroft argued that such a course would have fractured the alliance and would have had many unnecessary political and human costs associated with it.
In 1992, the United States Secretary of Defense during the war, Dick Cheney, made the same point:
I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home. And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war. And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.[33]
Instead of greater involvement of its own military, the United States hoped that Saddam Hussein would be overthrown in an internal coup d'état. The Central Intelligence Agency used its assets in Iraq to organize a revolt, but the Iraqi government defeated the effort.
On March 10, 1991, Operation Desert Storm began to move 540,000 American troops out of the Persian Gulf.
Explain why you believe there was a surrender document signed, and what provisions of this alledged surrendar document Saddam violated.
I also find it interesting that the first Gulf War was fought by a coalition, yet the United States took it unilaterally upon itself to determine that Iraq must be invaded, rather than wait for coalition support. Maybe George Herbet Walker Bush was just better at consensus building than George W Bush?
In regard to your "honey trap" and all the rest analogy, why couldn't that have been accomplished in Afghanistan? Also, it appears you are advocating the destruction through continual warfare of a sovereign country, to include deaths of the populace, as the legitimate strategy of the Iraq War, not "liberation" of a people from a dictator as you continually say.
I will say again, no wonder that Iraqi reporter threw his shoes.
There was a cease-fire agreement, and they were in clear violation of it.
The war against Iraq was fought with a coalition as well. GHW Bush WAS better at building a consensus, but that's of course not relevant to the discussion. Neither is the coalition red herring, Either it was justifiable or it was not -- numbers agreeing means nothing.
www.truthaboutiraq.org/index.php/Legality_Of_The_Iraq_War
We are ALSO doing this in Afghanistan.
These are SIDE benefits of the basic strategy, which is to spread liberty and to create allies in strategically placed countries within the "Muslim world." I put that term in quotes because that is how many Muslms see it. I do not see religions as being capable of holding territory. The Jihad does.
I must take this time to thank you for behaving decently here! This is nice!
Thank you for acknowledging that there was no surrender document ever signed.
I remember the coalition George W Bush put together. It occurred as a result of Secretary of State Colin Powell going up before the United Nations and presenting pictures of an alledged mobile weapons lab, or smoke, mirrors, and distortions. Funny how Colin Powell didn't stick around after he was used to spread disinformation to justify an illegal regime change. It was a coalition formed after the decision to invade had been made, for the sake of covering our ass. It comes in handy right about now, as we argue on the forums doesn't it? But it was always an American show.
I don't consider a coalition comprised of members who feel they have to make a show of their flag to stay in the good graces of an ally to be a legitimate coaltion. Where are they all now? Were they true believers in 'the cause"?
I am glad you feel this second coalition of the members downright lied to is as valid as the coalition of George Herbert Walker Bush, though it included only the gullible. I guess being lied to still makes them a willing participant.
As to inspections, Saddam complied with the inspectors, he allowed them access, allowed them to conduct their inspections, however they were not finding anything. No matter how hard they looked, they never found anything. No matter what demands were placed on him, to rummage through his dirty underwear every morning, to inspect his girlfriends IUDs, to checking his palaces, cars, gas stations, car washes, etc, no WMDs were every found. Why was that? Maybe Saddam just grew tired of it all, and thought "enough is enough"? How could Saddam ever prove a negative, that he had no WMDs?
After a certain point the inspections become pointless. The inspectors could have searched for a thousand years for Saddam's WMDs, and the result would have been the same.
Side benefits? Name me which Muslim country in the region has decided to become an ally of the United States as a result of the Iraq war?
If anything, they have learned not to invite us in. We make terrible guests, trash their house, insult their family, and never go home. Why do you think this guy threw his shoes at Bush, because he liked him and though Dubya could use the footwear as a gift?
And I appreciate your appreciation. Just lay off the "gotcha" terms and quit trying to use an "I win" button.
Sorry, you blew it. Appreciation over. Bye.
fishermage.blogspot.com
And gotcha meant "I understand you," as one could easily discern from the context. A real pity. You were doing so well too.
fishermage.blogspot.com
And I hope your President gets what he deserves for killing thousands of innocent people and increasing the hate in the world that will lead to hundreds of thousands of innocent lifes lost and infinite suffering for the families.
I realize your comment was less than serious.
One of the areas we seem to disagree in is the resolution of the problem of fundamentalists. I believe that given economic participation on a level playing field most fathers and mothers will want their sons and daughters to go to school, get an education, become doctors, scientists, engineers, etc rather than engage in suicide bombing attacks.
In order to stabilize the region it is important not to just give the illussion of hope, but to actually deliver the bacon. Revolution and insurgencies do not thrive where there is a strong middle class. They breed in the poverty of the third world, which is predominately feudal agrarian.
Iraq was actually on the verge of making the transition into the industrial age. With this transition would have come increased wealth, and ultimately Saddam/Sunnis would have shared power to leverage the wealth/consumer cycle of the Shiites and Kurds. Economies grow based on circulation of capital, the more the capital circulates, the faster the capital circulates, the more the society is enriched. Choke off the flow of capital and the economy stagnates. Taxes is not the key, if capital is circulating more, and faster, a lower tax rate can actually generate more revenue. Economic problems therefore should be addressed by stimulating the circulation of capital. Circulation is the cause, taxes becomes the effect. Circulation drives taxes, not vice versa.
Anyway, back up a bit and consider the problem China has today, the Chinese people are getting a taste of what not having to live hand to mouth is about. They will not subserviently go back to a feudal agrarian existance. Their government must move foreward. It is as Ghandi said, "There go my people, I must hurry to get in front of them, for I am their leader".
Marxism failed because the western standard of living passed it by. Frankly, had Kruschev been able to bury us, and leave us in the dust economically, most of the world would have taken up the Communist mantra willingly. The fact that they couldn't meant their people were willing to take up the capitalist mantra. Once again, "There go my people, I must hurry to get in front of them, for I am their leader".
My comment back to Frodus was that in humiliating the Al Quada insurgency in Iraq we also humiliated the Iraqi people. It is the law of unintended consequences.
So you see Sabian, if you read this -- there ARE people here that are arguing that FOR saddam -- that he was the legitimate ruler of Iraq. that the Kurds wanted to be gassed, that the Shiites wanted to fill up mass graves for saddam, that they wanted to watch their family members being raped -- it was just. good, and legitimate. It was the will of the Iraqi people and we were wrong to try and put an end to that.
fishermage.blogspot.com
And I hope your President gets what he deserves for killing thousands of innocent people and increasing the hate in the world that will lead to hundreds of thousands of innocent lifes lost and infinite suffering for the families.
The hate is IN YOU, and it's no one's fault but your own.
fishermage.blogspot.com
Of course dictatorships are not legitimate countries, presidents and prime ministers are not legitimate countries either. They are people, governments. You argue apples and oranges.
A dictatorship is just as legitimate a government as a republic, democracy, theocracy, or oligarchy. Each of these forms of government holds power through the will of the people. No dictator controls his country single handed, he/she forms coalitions to enjoy the support of enough of the populace to retain power.
Governments are not controlled by one person. George W Bush does not control the United States and enjoy the support from 100% of the population. He holds his control based on the support of the Republican Party, a coalition of Republican voters, and a coalition of the Republican Congress.
Saddam enjoyed his position through the support of the Sunni Iraqis. Had it not been Saddam, it would have been another Sunni, possibly from the military. Primarily because a Kurd could not form a coalition to retain power in the country, and the Shiites were/are poorly positioned to govern.
To paraphrase Ghandi...."There go my people, I must hurry to get in front of them, for I am their leader".
I other words you do not believe in our declaration of Independence. If the people are kept in check under a reign of terror, it is the will of the people that they have done so -- if exiles are begging to end the rape of their families -- F'em, they want it like that.
Once again you are comparing apples and oranges. The Declaration of Independance does not call for a foreign nation to initiate hostile action against another nation for the purpose of regime change.
The Declaration of Independance does recognize the right of a people to rise up against their OWN government.
That is why French interferance in the revolution was delayed. That is why foreign intervention in many revolutions is delayed. To determine whether the minority seeking to overthrow their government represent the will of the majority and have just cause.
Under your scenario, we should be liberating Mindinoa from the Phillipines, the Basques from Spain, and the Palestininans from Israel, invading Zimbabwe, and every country in which a minority of the populace does not support their own government.
The people of Iraq WERE rising up in opposition to Saddam, so were the people inside Iraq. We helped them. I am talking about whether it is morally right to help0 them free themselves or not. I say it is, and the declaration's language supports me on that.
If governments purpose is to secure the rights of life liberty and property, and IF they derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, THEN Saddam's regime was unlawful. IF that is the case and his people in exile begged us to help them overthrow him and restore democracy (they did), we have every moral right to help them do so. We did so.
I am not making any comparisons. I am deciding that the rights enshrined in the declaration are universal. You don't believe that. Gotcha.
The people of Iraq were NOT rising up in opposition to Saddam, only certain segments of the population rose up in opposition to Saddam. That does not warrant intervention by a foreign power into the affairs of a sovereign state for the purpose of regime change.
That is why the Iraqi military was disarmed, to prevent the restoration of Saddam. Up until the execution of Saddam such a possibilty was recognized. That is what the Sunni resistance against the United States occupation was all about. Had the United States pulled out immediately, while Saddam was still alive, the Sunni's would have restored Saddam to power.
Saddam's government did secure the rights of liberty and property, and derived it's powers from the consent of the governed just as much as any other government does. It protected the rights of the Sunni constituency, protected the property of the Sunni constituency, and had the consent of the Sunni constituency. That constituency of the Iraqi people makes Saddam's government just as legitimate as the constituency of the Republican Party. No other nation in the world would interfere in the internal affairs of the United States and invade for the purpose of a regime change based on a revolt or request by the Democrats, or any other segment of the American population. It would be seen as an illegal and immoral act under international law.
Your interpretation of the rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independance is comparing apples and oranges. The over riding principle of the Declaration of Independance was that it represented, both through the elected legislatures of ALL of the 13 American Colonies, and through each legislatures designed signatories, the grievances of ALL 13 colonies. It was not a declaration of only a segment of the population.
It wasn't signed by one colony, it wasn't signed by a minority of colonies, it wasn't signed by a majority of colonies, IT WAS SIGNED BY A CONSENSUS OF ALL THE COLONIES. That was a very important distinction at the time because it allowed for legitimate international recognition of the revolution.
Your arguement is that if a segment of a sovereign nation requests assistance in overthrowing a government that they feel is tyranical, the United States has the obligation under the Declaration of Independance to respond militarily and overthrow that regime. That is a receipe for toppling every single legitimate government in the world. Under your scenario, we should be invading Israel and liberating the Palestinian people.
You are twisting and subverting the Declaration of Independance to make it a document which justifies overthrowing any regime any where in the world that has even an insignificant amount of it's population that denounces their government as a tyranny. It doesn't work that way.
And, by the way, your use of the word "gotcha" is still not a magic "I win" button.
Oh well, at least you WERE arguing decently. there you go again with that "I win" button crap. I'll try with you the next time you try and be civilized. Bummer, it was nice for a moment.
You went first with the "gotcha" statement. I responded in kind. You reap what you sow.
Of course dictatorships are not legitimate countries, presidents and prime ministers are not legitimate countries either. They are people, governments. You argue apples and oranges.
A dictatorship is just as legitimate a government as a republic, democracy, theocracy, or oligarchy. Each of these forms of government holds power through the will of the people. No dictator controls his country single handed, he/she forms coalitions to enjoy the support of enough of the populace to retain power.
Governments are not controlled by one person. George W Bush does not control the United States and enjoy the support from 100% of the population. He holds his control based on the support of the Republican Party, a coalition of Republican voters, and a coalition of the Republican Congress.
Saddam enjoyed his position through the support of the Sunni Iraqis. Had it not been Saddam, it would have been another Sunni, possibly from the military. Primarily because a Kurd could not form a coalition to retain power in the country, and the Shiites were/are poorly positioned to govern.
To paraphrase Ghandi...."There go my people, I must hurry to get in front of them, for I am their leader".
I other words you do not believe in our declaration of Independence. If the people are kept in check under a reign of terror, it is the will of the people that they have done so -- if exiles are begging to end the rape of their families -- F'em, they want it like that.
Once again you are comparing apples and oranges. The Declaration of Independance does not call for a foreign nation to initiate hostile action against another nation for the purpose of regime change.
The Declaration of Independance does recognize the right of a people to rise up against their OWN government.
That is why French interferance in the revolution was delayed. That is why foreign intervention in many revolutions is delayed. To determine whether the minority seeking to overthrow their government represent the will of the majority and have just cause.
Under your scenario, we should be liberating Mindinoa from the Phillipines, the Basques from Spain, and the Palestininans from Israel, invading Zimbabwe, and every country in which a minority of the populace does not support their own government.
The people of Iraq WERE rising up in opposition to Saddam, so were the people inside Iraq. We helped them. I am talking about whether it is morally right to help0 them free themselves or not. I say it is, and the declaration's language supports me on that.
If governments purpose is to secure the rights of life liberty and property, and IF they derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, THEN Saddam's regime was unlawful. IF that is the case and his people in exile begged us to help them overthrow him and restore democracy (they did), we have every moral right to help them do so. We did so.
I am not making any comparisons. I am deciding that the rights enshrined in the declaration are universal. You don't believe that. Gotcha.
The people of Iraq were NOT rising up in opposition to Saddam, only certain segments of the population rose up in opposition to Saddam. That does not warrant intervention by a foreign power into the affairs of a sovereign state for the purpose of regime change.
That is why the Iraqi military was disarmed, to prevent the restoration of Saddam. Up until the execution of Saddam such a possibilty was recognized. That is what the Sunni resistance against the United States occupation was all about. Had the United States pulled out immediately, while Saddam was still alive, the Sunni's would have restored Saddam to power.
Saddam's government did secure the rights of liberty and property, and derived it's powers from the consent of the governed just as much as any other government does. It protected the rights of the Sunni constituency, protected the property of the Sunni constituency, and had the consent of the Sunni constituency. That constituency of the Iraqi people makes Saddam's government just as legitimate as the constituency of the Republican Party. No other nation in the world would interfere in the internal affairs of the United States and invade for the purpose of a regime change based on a revolt or request by the Democrats, or any other segment of the American population. It would be seen as an illegal and immoral act under international law.
Your interpretation of the rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independance is comparing apples and oranges. The over riding principle of the Declaration of Independance was that it represented, both through the elected legislatures of ALL of the 13 American Colonies, and through each legislatures designed signatories, the grievances of ALL 13 colonies. It was not a declaration of only a segment of the population.
It wasn't signed by one colony, it wasn't signed by a minority of colonies, it wasn't signed by a majority of colonies, IT WAS SIGNED BY A CONSENSUS OF ALL THE COLONIES. That was a very important distinction at the time because it allowed for legitimate international recognition of the revolution.
Your arguement is that if a segment of a sovereign nation requests assistance in overthrowing a government that they feel is tyranical, the United States has the obligation under the Declaration of Independance to respond militarily and overthrow that regime. That is a receipe for toppling every single legitimate government in the world. Under your scenario, we should be invading Israel and liberating the Palestinian people.
You are twisting and subverting the Declaration of Independance to make it a document which justifies overthrowing any regime any where in the world that has even an insignificant amount of it's population that denounces their government as a tyranny. It doesn't work that way.
And, by the way, your use of the word "gotcha" is still not a magic "I win" button.
Oh well, at least you WERE arguing decently. there you go again with that "I win" button crap. I'll try with you the next time you try and be civilized. Bummer, it was nice for a moment.
You went first with the "gotcha" statement. I responded in kind. You reap what you sow.
Gotcha means, "I understand what you are saying." that did not deserve YOU getting personal. Sorry, once again you have shown you have no real desire to have a reasonable discussion. Dang, and I was so looking forward to what might have been a real debate. Oh well.
Maybe someday a liberal will rise who knows how decent people argue.
fishermage.blogspot.com
lol.. I was getting out the popcorn too
looks like fishermage just got the excuse he needed to back out of the debate.
ya, I sorta read "Gotcha" the same way olddaddy did. Now that hes pretty much owned you in a debate you're pulling out a single phrase he said and spinning it to insinuate that he went for a personal tone with you.
meanwhile, you finish off by insulting him by calling him a liberal and not being capable of holding a debate with you. Another "I win" button for you consistant across many threads I see you post in. When you cant backup what you're saying, you try to make the person you're debating look like theyre insulting you. Meanwhile, you do the same thing and call the debate over, but thats OK
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a robot foot stomping on a human face -- forever."
I am BEGGING for a good discussion here, one without the crap. I answered him, and complimented him, until he went butthead on me. I did NOT call him anything -- I asked for a liberal to come forward who knows how decent people debate. I desperately want that here.
I was ENJOYING the debate, he didn't "own" me -- he was making the argument that the Iraqis wanted and supported Saddam, wanted their women raped by him, wanted to be gassed by him, wanted to fill mass graves for him -- and I was disagreeing. If you think he "owned" me, you must feel that way to. Do you?
He was also trying to make a VERY weak case that a ceasefire agreement is materially different than a surrender agreement -- as if it matters to the debate. It doesn't.
I still disagree, but I have no desire to debate with people who resort to shabby tactics. In fact, according to the mods we are NOT ALLOWED to engage such people. We MUST stop responding, OR ELSE. That's how these forums work whe you are not a liberal.
I am NOT insulted, and he was NOT insulting me. It is impossible to insult me. That doesn't mean i won't call him when he returns to his usual tactics.
is there a liberal here who knows how decent people debate? Bring it on
fishermage.blogspot.com
Of course dictatorships are not legitimate countries, presidents and prime ministers are not legitimate countries either. They are people, governments. You argue apples and oranges.
A dictatorship is just as legitimate a government as a republic, democracy, theocracy, or oligarchy. Each of these forms of government holds power through the will of the people. No dictator controls his country single handed, he/she forms coalitions to enjoy the support of enough of the populace to retain power.
Governments are not controlled by one person. George W Bush does not control the United States and enjoy the support from 100% of the population. He holds his control based on the support of the Republican Party, a coalition of Republican voters, and a coalition of the Republican Congress.
Saddam enjoyed his position through the support of the Sunni Iraqis. Had it not been Saddam, it would have been another Sunni, possibly from the military. Primarily because a Kurd could not form a coalition to retain power in the country, and the Shiites were/are poorly positioned to govern.
To paraphrase Ghandi...."There go my people, I must hurry to get in front of them, for I am their leader".
I other words you do not believe in our declaration of Independence. If the people are kept in check under a reign of terror, it is the will of the people that they have done so -- if exiles are begging to end the rape of their families -- F'em, they want it like that.
Once again you are comparing apples and oranges. The Declaration of Independance does not call for a foreign nation to initiate hostile action against another nation for the purpose of regime change.
The Declaration of Independance does recognize the right of a people to rise up against their OWN government.
That is why French interferance in the revolution was delayed. That is why foreign intervention in many revolutions is delayed. To determine whether the minority seeking to overthrow their government represent the will of the majority and have just cause.
Under your scenario, we should be liberating Mindinoa from the Phillipines, the Basques from Spain, and the Palestininans from Israel, invading Zimbabwe, and every country in which a minority of the populace does not support their own government.
The people of Iraq WERE rising up in opposition to Saddam, so were the people inside Iraq. We helped them. I am talking about whether it is morally right to help0 them free themselves or not. I say it is, and the declaration's language supports me on that.
If governments purpose is to secure the rights of life liberty and property, and IF they derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, THEN Saddam's regime was unlawful. IF that is the case and his people in exile begged us to help them overthrow him and restore democracy (they did), we have every moral right to help them do so. We did so.
I am not making any comparisons. I am deciding that the rights enshrined in the declaration are universal. You don't believe that. Gotcha.
The people of Iraq were NOT rising up in opposition to Saddam, only certain segments of the population rose up in opposition to Saddam. That does not warrant intervention by a foreign power into the affairs of a sovereign state for the purpose of regime change.
That is why the Iraqi military was disarmed, to prevent the restoration of Saddam. Up until the execution of Saddam such a possibilty was recognized. That is what the Sunni resistance against the United States occupation was all about. Had the United States pulled out immediately, while Saddam was still alive, the Sunni's would have restored Saddam to power.
Saddam's government did secure the rights of liberty and property, and derived it's powers from the consent of the governed just as much as any other government does. It protected the rights of the Sunni constituency, protected the property of the Sunni constituency, and had the consent of the Sunni constituency. That constituency of the Iraqi people makes Saddam's government just as legitimate as the constituency of the Republican Party. No other nation in the world would interfere in the internal affairs of the United States and invade for the purpose of a regime change based on a revolt or request by the Democrats, or any other segment of the American population. It would be seen as an illegal and immoral act under international law.
Your interpretation of the rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independance is comparing apples and oranges. The over riding principle of the Declaration of Independance was that it represented, both through the elected legislatures of ALL of the 13 American Colonies, and through each legislatures designed signatories, the grievances of ALL 13 colonies. It was not a declaration of only a segment of the population.
It wasn't signed by one colony, it wasn't signed by a minority of colonies, it wasn't signed by a majority of colonies, IT WAS SIGNED BY A CONSENSUS OF ALL THE COLONIES. That was a very important distinction at the time because it allowed for legitimate international recognition of the revolution.
Your arguement is that if a segment of a sovereign nation requests assistance in overthrowing a government that they feel is tyranical, the United States has the obligation under the Declaration of Independance to respond militarily and overthrow that regime. That is a receipe for toppling every single legitimate government in the world. Under your scenario, we should be invading Israel and liberating the Palestinian people.
You are twisting and subverting the Declaration of Independance to make it a document which justifies overthrowing any regime any where in the world that has even an insignificant amount of it's population that denounces their government as a tyranny. It doesn't work that way.
And, by the way, your use of the word "gotcha" is still not a magic "I win" button.
Oh well, at least you WERE arguing decently. there you go again with that "I win" button crap. I'll try with you the next time you try and be civilized. Bummer, it was nice for a moment.
You went first with the "gotcha" statement. I responded in kind. You reap what you sow.
Gotcha means, "I understand what you are saying." that did not deserve YOU getting personal. Sorry, once again you have shown you have no real desire to have a reasonable discussion. Dang, and I was so looking forward to what might have been a real debate. Oh well.
Maybe someday a liberal will rise who knows how decent people argue.
Perhaps one day you will learn not to play semantics games by taking a cheap shot with a double entendre.
Of course dictatorships are not legitimate countries, presidents and prime ministers are not legitimate countries either. They are people, governments. You argue apples and oranges.
A dictatorship is just as legitimate a government as a republic, democracy, theocracy, or oligarchy. Each of these forms of government holds power through the will of the people. No dictator controls his country single handed, he/she forms coalitions to enjoy the support of enough of the populace to retain power.
Governments are not controlled by one person. George W Bush does not control the United States and enjoy the support from 100% of the population. He holds his control based on the support of the Republican Party, a coalition of Republican voters, and a coalition of the Republican Congress.
Saddam enjoyed his position through the support of the Sunni Iraqis. Had it not been Saddam, it would have been another Sunni, possibly from the military. Primarily because a Kurd could not form a coalition to retain power in the country, and the Shiites were/are poorly positioned to govern.
To paraphrase Ghandi...."There go my people, I must hurry to get in front of them, for I am their leader".
I other words you do not believe in our declaration of Independence. If the people are kept in check under a reign of terror, it is the will of the people that they have done so -- if exiles are begging to end the rape of their families -- F'em, they want it like that.
Once again you are comparing apples and oranges. The Declaration of Independance does not call for a foreign nation to initiate hostile action against another nation for the purpose of regime change.
The Declaration of Independance does recognize the right of a people to rise up against their OWN government.
That is why French interferance in the revolution was delayed. That is why foreign intervention in many revolutions is delayed. To determine whether the minority seeking to overthrow their government represent the will of the majority and have just cause.
Under your scenario, we should be liberating Mindinoa from the Phillipines, the Basques from Spain, and the Palestininans from Israel, invading Zimbabwe, and every country in which a minority of the populace does not support their own government.
The people of Iraq WERE rising up in opposition to Saddam, so were the people inside Iraq. We helped them. I am talking about whether it is morally right to help0 them free themselves or not. I say it is, and the declaration's language supports me on that.
If governments purpose is to secure the rights of life liberty and property, and IF they derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, THEN Saddam's regime was unlawful. IF that is the case and his people in exile begged us to help them overthrow him and restore democracy (they did), we have every moral right to help them do so. We did so.
I am not making any comparisons. I am deciding that the rights enshrined in the declaration are universal. You don't believe that. Gotcha.
The people of Iraq were NOT rising up in opposition to Saddam, only certain segments of the population rose up in opposition to Saddam. That does not warrant intervention by a foreign power into the affairs of a sovereign state for the purpose of regime change.
That is why the Iraqi military was disarmed, to prevent the restoration of Saddam. Up until the execution of Saddam such a possibilty was recognized. That is what the Sunni resistance against the United States occupation was all about. Had the United States pulled out immediately, while Saddam was still alive, the Sunni's would have restored Saddam to power.
Saddam's government did secure the rights of liberty and property, and derived it's powers from the consent of the governed just as much as any other government does. It protected the rights of the Sunni constituency, protected the property of the Sunni constituency, and had the consent of the Sunni constituency. That constituency of the Iraqi people makes Saddam's government just as legitimate as the constituency of the Republican Party. No other nation in the world would interfere in the internal affairs of the United States and invade for the purpose of a regime change based on a revolt or request by the Democrats, or any other segment of the American population. It would be seen as an illegal and immoral act under international law.
Your interpretation of the rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independance is comparing apples and oranges. The over riding principle of the Declaration of Independance was that it represented, both through the elected legislatures of ALL of the 13 American Colonies, and through each legislatures designed signatories, the grievances of ALL 13 colonies. It was not a declaration of only a segment of the population.
It wasn't signed by one colony, it wasn't signed by a minority of colonies, it wasn't signed by a majority of colonies, IT WAS SIGNED BY A CONSENSUS OF ALL THE COLONIES. That was a very important distinction at the time because it allowed for legitimate international recognition of the revolution.
Your arguement is that if a segment of a sovereign nation requests assistance in overthrowing a government that they feel is tyranical, the United States has the obligation under the Declaration of Independance to respond militarily and overthrow that regime. That is a receipe for toppling every single legitimate government in the world. Under your scenario, we should be invading Israel and liberating the Palestinian people.
You are twisting and subverting the Declaration of Independance to make it a document which justifies overthrowing any regime any where in the world that has even an insignificant amount of it's population that denounces their government as a tyranny. It doesn't work that way.
And, by the way, your use of the word "gotcha" is still not a magic "I win" button.
Oh well, at least you WERE arguing decently. there you go again with that "I win" button crap. I'll try with you the next time you try and be civilized. Bummer, it was nice for a moment.
You went first with the "gotcha" statement. I responded in kind. You reap what you sow.
Gotcha means, "I understand what you are saying." that did not deserve YOU getting personal. Sorry, once again you have shown you have no real desire to have a reasonable discussion. Dang, and I was so looking forward to what might have been a real debate. Oh well.
Maybe someday a liberal will rise who knows how decent people argue.
Perhaps one day you will learn not to play semantics games by taking a cheap shot with a double entendre.
Actually, the only semantic game in our debate was when you acted as if there was a meterial difference between a cease-fire agreement (which we dictated upon victory) and a surrender agreement.
Also there was no possible way to take "gotcha" as meaning "I caught you" in that context. Only someone who is looking for a fight would do that. Well, since I don't want to get into the usual mix-up with the mods by continuing am argument with someone who merely wants to start a flame war and doesn't want to have a real discussion, I'll bid you adieu.
Again, I am calling out for a liberal who knows how decent people argue.
Come, let us debate the issues!
fishermage.blogspot.com
I wonder if this is the first time a shoe has been thrown at an american president?
At least he dodged it, he'd do well on my highschool's dodge ball team
I think thats all he'll be rememberd for in history, the president who dodged a shoe, and started a couple wars.
Yes but not the rights war. Im thinking a good size war is in order. Between real countries where th enemy is clear. After all WW2 fixed the economy(The New Deal basicly did shit). War is the best thing to fix a economy and I think some european countries need to learn their place after all this trash talking because of the Iraq war
(dont even pretend like they could stand a chance itd be over in a week or so with clear targets)
And for those who can't tell sarcasm, no I don't think we should go to war with Europe.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day.
And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
Its amazing that some still write the history like they want. The aim or the reason for the Iraw invasion was not to help or to free iraqi people. Did you forget all that the reason was that the US government believed that Hussein was involved with Al Quaida and it was believed that massive destruction weapons was a threat ?
None of the reason was right, there were no massive destruction weapons and saddam was not involved with al quaida, the whole iraq war had nothing in common with 911. Not to mention that there was probably a high interest about the Oil ressources, about economical interests and guess what....much parts of it even failed. How many companies pulled out or just did not reached their financial goals in iraq. The press in the US was so biased at this time it was unbelievable, where were the criticial statements in this time...movies were produced i.e. 21 days to bagdad which are full of propaganda and lies.
In the last 8 years the bush government lost faith in the world, they told the world "either you are with us or against us", they refused international UN Resolutions and didnt care about it. The conflicts which arised brought the world problems which did not end until now and will still take years to solve them.
Why do you think Obama did win the elections, cause peopel want a change and this change is important. The good bye wishes from the houndred of thousands of iraqi civilian victims in form of two shoes is just a small act from one nervous journalist, but dont you think that bush deserves "at least" two shoes ?