posted
England has Tony Blair. Australia has John Howard. Both are arse suckers for supporting strikes against Iraq.
First old chap, you quoted something along the lines of "iraqi fire against US planes has increased 10 fold". No shit. If you were occupying my country and starving my children to death with your policies I'd be firing at you too.
posted
Well, then, why aren't the Iraqi people shooting at Sadaam Housein (or however the heck it's spelled)? You think they were any better off before the sanctions? He's a dictator, and a whacko one at that. Effectively, HE is occupying their country, and HE is starving their children. If he actually cared about his country, don't you think he'd step down?
------------------ Disclaimer: "All references to vices and of the supernatural contained in this game are for entertainment purposes only. _Over_The_Edge_ does not promote satanisim, belief in magic, drug use, violence, sexual deviation, body piercing, cynical attitudes toward the government, freedom of expression, or any other action or belief not condoned by the authorities." - `OverTheEdge'
Obviously Hussein (whatever) doesn't give a rat's ass about Iraq beyond keeping himself in power.
At the same time, the people with the guns are loyal to Hussein.
So really there's not much the average Joe-Schmoe on the streets of Baghdad can do about the situation (although, IIRC, the CIA did provide arms to some rebel groups -- then withdrew support and let 'em all die the BASTARDS!).
Besides which, the media in Iraq is completely controlled by "Big Brother", in this case, Saddam. The people believe what they're told, and they're told that the US, Britain, etc., are the "devil" essentially.
And who can blame them for believing that? With a little bit of spin, it's essentially true. For the last ten years, their lack of food has been because of the US, UK, etc. They have been bombed on more than one occasion. Why should the people of Iraq find Saddam to be responsible for their situation and not the Western Powers?
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted)[/small] *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001 **** [small]"The candidate who slimed John McCain in the primaries and smeared Al Gore in the general election is now the president who pledges to elevate the nation's tone and bring civility to our discorse. Kind of like Michael Corleone brought peace to the mob by killing the heads of the other four families." --Paul Begala, Is Our Children Learning?
"If you were occupying my country and starving my children to death with your policies I'd be firing at you too."
Well, except that it isn't the people who are doing the shooting. It's the military, under orders from SH, and we can pretty well guess he doesn't exactly have the Iraqi people's best interests at heart...
------------------ My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.
posted
Many analysts conclude that it is better to carry out military strikes than impose sanctions and embargoes, as the military strikes are more direct in hurting the dictator, while the sanctions affect the civilians. The leaders can often benefit from embargoes as they become involved in lucrative black market trade.
------------------ *Kenshiro gets off bed made from solid stone* *Bed made from solid stone explodes* Fist of the North Star
posted
You know, I think there is probably one solution that would fix this once and for all, that doesn't involve the complete destruction of a major city. We just say, "We declare Sadaam Housein to be out of power. Your new government will be based around the US Constitution. Democratic elections will be held one month from today. Anyone may run for office, except any member of the Housein family. Resistance is futile." And it would be. What's the guy going to do? He only breathes at our discretion, and he has no military to work with.
------------------ Disclaimer: "All references to vices and of the supernatural contained in this game are for entertainment purposes only. _Over_The_Edge_ does not promote satanisim, belief in magic, drug use, violence, sexual deviation, body piercing, cynical attitudes toward the government, freedom of expression, or any other action or belief not condoned by the authorities." - `OverTheEdge'
Eh ... yeah, and we've got an Executive Order to stop us from taking him out.
Seriously, though, if Hussein was to be taken out of power, the time to do it was the Gulf War. The coalition dropped the ball on that one, and frankly, considering the international reaction the US/UK strike stirred up, if an assassination was tried, we'd be in deep doo-doo.
Actually, he only breathes at the discretion of his people. "Rule of Consent" (or "Consent to Rule?"). Basicly, the theory is that (this was in England, IIRC), if the poor and unarmed want to kick the king out, all the king's men can't stop 'em (although they could kill a lot of them). I believe it was used to pass some basic rights of the common people...
Er, anyway, if 10 years of sanctions haven't pushed the people to that point, (certainly some have been), we might as well give up. Or get 'em into another war with Iran. Might as well get some payback for our weapons they've got ...
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001 **** "The candidate who slimed John McCain in the primaries and smeared Al Gore in the general election is now the president who pledges to elevate the nation's tone and bring civility to our discorse. Kind of like Michael Corleone brought peace to the mob by killing the heads of the other four families." --Paul Begala, Is Our Children Learning?
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited February 19, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited February 19, 2001).]
quote:You know, I think there is probably one solution that would fix this once and for all, that doesn't involve the complete destruction of a major city. We just say, "We declare Sadaam Housein to be out of power. Your new government will be based around the US Constitution. Democratic elections will be held one month from today. Anyone may run for office, except any member of the Housein family. Resistance is futile." And it would be. What's the guy going to do? He only breathes at our discretion, and he has no military to work with.
Sure, other than the fact that the US has no power of this kind, no right to impose your values on anyone else, and that - this may be difficult for you Americans - NOT EVERYONE WANTS A US CONSTITUTION.
------------------ "...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.
posted
Not completely without precedent, however -- look at the Japanese Constitution.
Did anyone else find Disney's "Three Musketeers" to be very ... American? Especially the King's speech at the end? Dude, the Musketeers are the king's bodyguards not do-gooders! Yeeesh.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001 **** "The candidate who slimed John McCain in the primaries and smeared Al Gore in the general election is now the president who pledges to elevate the nation's tone and bring civility to our discorse. Kind of like Michael Corleone brought peace to the mob by killing the heads of the other four families." --Paul Begala, Is Our Children Learning?
posted
he only breathes at the discretion of his people. "Rule of Consent"
There can be no rule by consent without free elections.
Er, anyway, if 10 years of sanctions haven't pushed the people to that point, (certainly some have been), we might as well give up
They have been lied to, and simply don't hold Sadaam responsible for their plight. You don't seem to grasp the concept that people's reactions are determined by what they're told. If they're lied to, they act on false information. Stalin and Mao, for examples. The two greatest mass murderers in history, and yet their people love(d) them. Why? Because they were lied to.
the US has no power of this kind, no right to impose your values on anyone else
Please, tell me, how can one impose what is by definition the lack of imposition? One can not impose freedom. Freedom is a natural state. All other conditions are impositions.
look at the Japanese Constitution.
Exactly my point. Look at Japan.
------------------ Disclaimer: "All references to vices and of the supernatural contained in this game are for entertainment purposes only. _Over_The_Edge_ does not promote satanisim, belief in magic, drug use, violence, sexual deviation, body piercing, cynical attitudes toward the government, freedom of expression, or any other action or belief not condoned by the authorities." - `OverTheEdge'
"Rule of Consent" isn't dependent on free elections. The peoples of England were in a monarchy -- they didn't elect the king. The point was, that the king was threatened to give them more rights, or they would overthrow them. Essentially it's "the many will kill the few, even if the few have lotsa' weapons and can kill us." But, the majority of the people don't think/believe/feel that Saddam is the problem -- they think that we (the US and the UK, mostly) are.
They have been lied to, and simply don't hold Sadaam responsible for their plight. You don't seem to grasp the concept that people's reactions are determined by what they're told. If they're lied to, they act on false information. Stalin and Mao, for examples. The two greatest mass murderers in history, and yet their people love(d) them. Why? Because they were lied to.
Actually, Omega, I do understand that, and the point I was trying to make is that starving the Iraqi people doesn't push them to the point to see beyond Saddam's lies, probably nothing will. Please scroll up and read some of my earlier posts about Saddam & Co. controlling the media.
Exactly my point. Look at Japan.
Sure, except we defeated and conquored Japan after a war. On the contrast, we defeated but did not conquor Iraq. If someone was going to take Saddam out, the time to do it was in 1991 during Desert Storm, when there was actually support for such an action. Today, such support doesn't exist, so we can't really do anything about it. The ball was dropped, and we're paying the consequences for it.
------------------ Star Trek Gamma Quadrant Average Rated 6.27 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux (with four eps posted) *** "Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" -Omega 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001 **** "The candidate who slimed John McCain in the primaries and smeared Al Gore in the general election is now the president who pledges to elevate the nation's tone and bring civility to our discorse. Kind of like Michael Corleone brought peace to the mob by killing the heads of the other four families." --Paul Begala, Is Our Children Learning?
posted
starving the Iraqi people doesn't push them to the point to see beyond Saddam's lies, probably nothing will. Please scroll up and read some of my earlier posts about Saddam & Co. controlling the media.
Thus, we take Saddam out of the game, and set up free media. The truth will set you free.
As for your little theory about Saddam's possibility of being overthrown by his people, where would they get the weaponry? Where would they get the will? Saddam controls the media, after all. He does NOT rule by consent, because the people do not know the truth, and even if they did, would have no chance to get rid of him.
------------------ Disclaimer: "All references to vices and of the supernatural contained in this game are for entertainment purposes only. _Over_The_Edge_ does not promote satanisim, belief in magic, drug use, violence, sexual deviation, body piercing, cynical attitudes toward the government, freedom of expression, or any other action or belief not condoned by the authorities." - `OverTheEdge'
Orion Syndicate
He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!
Member # 25
posted
What truth is that? That he's an evil maniac who's dictator of the country, or that he's standing up to the tyranny of the West? I don't like Saddam and think that Iraq will be better without him.
However he has been supported in power by the West, he was kept in power by the West, even when he started killing the Kurds. Now the IRAQI PEOPLE are being punished for the mistakes of the West. Justice? Tyranny would fit the bill much better.
As has been mentioned many times earlier, if the governments wanted, they could easily get rid of him. He's an easy pawn though. Keeping him in power, the US or Britain can always go and bomb him when they want to divert attention away from problems at home.
Bush is still being lambasted for the troubles surrounding his election. Bomb Iraq and divert attention. Tony Blair has got major problems at home with Mandelson, Vaz and now Lord Irvine. I know, lets bomb Iraq and divert attention. This is just a cynical ploy which has got nothing to do with foreign policy but everything to do with domestic policy. If it was carried out by anyone else, it would be condemned by Britain and US as a criminal act. It's hypocracy of the highest degree.
------------------ The Worlds Ten Greatest 'Fucks' #2
Printer-friendly view of this topic
