>look not to be funny, but what done IS done... no matter how much you protest
>in your nice comfy chair, or down streets will it make the damn'dest of the
>difference. Why? Because there is a point of commitment, which the Troops have
>now taken. The time for talking and voicing opinions is past ... now its time
>to make sure that this conflict is done in the right way rather than adding
>extra pressure on the governments and causing even more problems because
>they're not focused exactly on the job in hand.
>If you truely want to make a difference JOIN the armed forces!
>else BE QUIET and let the men and women do thier damn'd jobs without feeling
>bad because they're not doing what everyone wants. It is bad enough most are
>doing this even dispite veiws ... but then its as was of the soliders said the
>other day - THIS is what they are there to do. A deterant is all well and
>good, having the force to show and be a deterant to any real conflicts, but at
>the end of the day if they never see real combat they'll never be ready if
>REAL combat arises. And Iraq is not the only theatre they'll be called upon to
>fight within - so pipedown.
Ohhh... Raven, Stalin would be proud of that speech... Before changing the Soviet constitution, he lobbied for a ban on faction politics in the CPSU... Discuss,vote and then stand by the decission even if You don't agree... Come to think of it, that very much like things work in Iraq as well...
Only problem is that human beings have a conscience and find it difficult to stand by decissions that they don't agree with. Human beings are not automatons, and as we have a free will, why not use it...
Since You want to blindly follow, what will You do if conditions change? What if the iraqis put up a real fight? What if coalition forces start dying by left and right - What if iraqi civilians die left and right... What if the US uses nuclear weapons... What if GWB decides to go after North Korea next, or Vietnam, Libya, Cuba etc. When will You say 'I no longer wish to follow', or are You willing to let GWB start WW3.
A society where You 'support the state or shut up' is usually referred to as a dictatorship.
>If it turns out they really really liked him, I just can't imagine that!
The 'Silverback' syndrome is well known in virtually all cultures. When people vote, they vote for the candidate they believe is the strongest(therefore the most capable they think). Even if You don't get to vote, 'Law and order' 'candidates' makes You feel safe... Most iraqis would propably rather live in an arab dictatorship than under american occupation, so they support the current system.
>Also that cry of "give the inspectors more time", is a load of crap, 12 years
>later and everyone acts surprised,
Well, after upping the requirements several time, having UN inspectors spy for them and constant bombing campaigns, I can see why Iraq was not interested in cooperating with the UN.
>I bet Hitler would have loved you guys.
Saddam Hussein is hardly comparable to Hitler...
>ofcourse he should be put of power.
Why... It violates the principle of national sovereignty to kill the head of state of another country.
>he is the most cruel dictator in the
>region, perhaps even in the whole world.
I disagree, it's just because You havent been force-fed propaganda about the majority of the other arab states... Secret police, state sanctioned rape and torture, random killings, no personal freedoms etc. characterize that region as well as many others...
>first of all, it is clear that the purpose of the war isn't to liberate iraq,
>if that was the case, then you Yankees would have thought of it a long time
>ago. when for example Saddam gased his own people
Really, how do You know that Saddam gassed his own people?
>it wasn't a long time ago when someone from pentagon said "we don't care the
>least about human rights or democracy. if we would have, then we would have
>dealt with a whole lot of other countries a long time ago. we handle primarily
>out of out own interests".
Only a fool could believe that there were ever other reasons!
>second, Saddam has to go. but i don't think that dropping bombs over an
>already terrored population is going to help. my solution would be to remove
>the sanctions, use peacekeeping UN-units, and then actively supporting the
>people in removing Saddam from power.
Why not instead let the UN guarantee the security and sovereignty of Iraq as well as lifting al sanctions and promoting reforms! If Iraq does not feel threatened, they don't need an army. That way everybody wins, but the US won't get control of Iraq.
>Even if he has weapons of mass destruction, he knows that the second he uses
>them he would have the whole world against him. just look at his attack on
>kuwait. he was forced to stop.
Iraq could rightly claim that they were defending themselves, but as usual the media 'forgot' to tell us that Kuwait were stealing oil from Iraq.
>(i am still wondering why noone did anything about him back then when they had
>the opportunity).
Because he was an american ally... Just a few years before, the US had seen the Pro american Shah of Iran being deposed followed by violent anti american sentiments and growing islamic fanaticism.
>it is only paranoia to believe that Saddam is a threat to someone else than
>his own population. i think its completely fair comparing Saddam and Hitler on
>a "cruelty"-basis though.
And then again no! Saddam has most likely killed people himself, whereas Hitler never got his hands dirty... Saddam Hussein is the source of much cruelty in Iraq, whereas the Nazi cruelty usually came from people other than Hitler, mainly because Hitler sponsored an environment of radical thinking.
In all respects, Hitler was a product of western culture, whereas Saddam Hussein is clearly a product of arab culture.
