What is this war all about ??

[Ms.Bubbles]

To blame the US for the state of affairs over there is to miss 100's of years of history and completely short sighted.

Please re-read my post. I didn't blame the US for all problems in the middle east. I blamed US interference in middle eastern problems for the war between the US and the middle east. The attack on New York (9/11) didn't just come out of nowhere.

Joe, regarding the illuminati--I don't follow conspiracy theories, but the US's recent use of (admittedly) phony "intelligence reports" about finding weapons of mass destruction to take down Hussein demonstrates that they will use lies and smokescreens to further their own interests.

 

[momar]

Originally posted by 125gJoe:
As you well know, we have the "right" to bear arms. The UK is different in that respect.

I really want to reply to this but I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Are you saying that such militant action would be ok because the Constitution says you can carry guns? :huh:

originally posted by 125gJoe:
Did you even see the way Saddam took out his own people in that video when he was first in 'charge'? They went to their deaths because they did not agree with his ideals. ....You never saw that auditorium when they were pulled out to their deaths? You never saw the "human torture shredding machines"?

And, it seems there's a lot of folks that don't understand that we (UK too)enforced the United Nations RESOLUTIONS against Iraq. It's just that simple. Facts are facts.

I wasn't defending Saddam. I was talking about the Middle East in general. I think Saddam should be shot.You say he sent people to death for not agreeing with his ideals. Your country (and mine) invades other countries, involving the deaths of thousands of civilians, because those governments don't agree with its ideals.

Yes, we enforced resolutions. When it suited us. Before that we funded Saddam. The USA works in its own interests. And why not? But that will always cause inconsitency. You invade Iraq in the name of freedom. But when he was President of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mobutu was, in Washington terminology, a friendly tyrant. He was, as I think Reagan said, 'our dictator'. It suited the USA to support his totalitarian regime to defend against Soviet threats in Africa. Nothing gets done about Mugabe, who to my mind is worse than Saddam.

To go on a bit of a rant, look at American history. It has always been ideologically inconsistent. The USA was founded on the basis that 'all men are created equal', yet allowed slavery for 80 years. There was no universal suffrage for quite a while, either. What about the native Americans? The KKK? The millions below the poverty line? And its all very well saying you crusade for the little guy, but lots of Americans can't locate Iraq on a map. That's not their fault. Its the outlook that US hegemony promotes.

(this is not directed against anyone, just some more points)

 

[OrionGirl]

Check Snopes...

 

[Emg]

OG.....Now, I made a comment here concerning the info at snopes about that essay, I even posted a copy of what snopes had to say about it here......I posted that after you commented about it being "hooyey" because it was a mass emailing thing. How come that comment is no longer here ?

Am I mistaken ? Where those two posts made someplace else ? :huh:

 

[OrionGirl]

Ummm, yeah--at another forum....

 

[125gJoe]

.

Yes, we enforced resolutions. ...
To go on a bit of a rant, look at American history. It has always been ideologically inconsistent. The USA was founded on the basis that 'all men are created equal', yet allowed slavery for 80 years. There was no universal suffrage for quite a while, either. What about the native Americans? The KKK?...

I see your points, but those are not the topics of this thread.
Saddam would not keep promises on the resolutions he agreed on.


_______

 

[momar]

Saddam would not keep promises. The USA would not keep to international law (at least potentially).

Originally posted by 125gJoe:
Did you even see the way Saddam took out his own people in that video when he was first in 'charge'?

No, but when he was fisrt in charge he was supported by Western governments.

Originally posetd by Ms.Bubbles:
This ruse about the US wanting "fairness and democracy" for foreign countries is bunk. They are interested in maintaining their own interests, and are using the concept of democracy as a political smokescreen for their real intentions.

I think this is only true up to a point. I do believe that the USA has a genuine interest in promoting democracy and its version of freedom (of course, on the condition that democracy results in a pro-Western government). However, this is overridden by the nation's own interests; that's why Iraq gets invaded but Zimbabwe doesn't. I don't think the USA would ever invade a democratic nation. The USA also makes the somewhat foolish assumption that democracy will always work and everywhere can be a mini-USA capitalist utopia. It took democracy hundreds of years to evolve in Europe (and by extension America). But the USA tries to impose it overnight on countries which have no experience of it, and then they expect it to work. Democracy isn't always right.

 

[DeputyChiefJR]

Can our government make wrong decisions regarding things to do in the Middle East?
Well we did put both Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein into power....

 

[125gJoe]

... But the USA tries to impose it overnight on countries which have no experience of it, and then they expect it to work. Democracy isn't always right.

That's part of the main problem. Many think, "OK - they (Iraqi's) voted, now cut and run.."

Since Democracy is not always right, what is better?


_______

 

[Ms.Bubbles]

That's part of the main problem. Many think, "OK - they voted, now cut and run.."

Since Democracy is not always right, what is better?

It isn't that democracy isn't "right", it's that it is forced suddenly upon countries from an external source (ie. the U.S). These countries have no experience with this kind of political freedom and no government that is capable of operating the country democratically from within. Without a stable long-term democratic government to move into place, the country ends up falling into chaos, and extremist groups end up taking over again.