Iraq - The End game

[sunnysan]

What

This is not only about Iraq. Its about the judgement of our leaders

You cannot deny that our patronisingly magnanimous actions to democratise Iraq have failed owing to shortsighted and ill-concieved policies or as some people will say, policies crafted to obscure a hidden neo-con/capitalist agenda.

The fact that our leaders have substantially weakened our position in the global arena, even having more intelligence resource at their sdisposal than most other countries defies belief.

You cannot turn around and blame a traditionally clan structured, and theologically divided people for not embracing the ballotbox and not subscribing to a system and a set of values which is totally foreign to a large majority of the people.

If the democratisation of Iraq occured through diplomatic means instead of by force, you may or may not have had a democratic government if 5/10 years time with far less loss of life and destruction of property.

Sticking to the goal of a democratic Iraq, what is the prognosis now? 5/10/15 years to a stable governement, starvation, people dying of preventable diseases, a bombsite instead of a country? I am sure you will agree that that is by no means a fertile ground for representative government and democracy.

At the height of his atrocities, Saddam acted with the tacit approval of the US owing to his allegiances.

At least Sunni and Shia violence was slightly contained under SH, as for all his atrocities, he knew how to govern his country, unlike the two idealist tw@ts B and B who havent even got a clue where to start.

Democracy is not a universally understood concept, its a system of government underpinned by a constitution and upheld by a philosophy. It requires stability to be successfull, which is something that Iraq does not have ATM

[Ardesco]

Much the same could be said for Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot etc. So that justifies leaving them in power does it? After all, as you pointed out earlier, we had the UN green light to act.



See above comment. Nice and easy sentiments to have when you live thousands of miles away and can sit on your hands and look the other way, Just when did the people in this country lose their moral fibre anyway?

It's nothing to do with morale fibre, it is all to do with not sticking our nose in other peoples lives. How would you like it if a middle eastern force rolled into London, killed our government and put in a dcitator telling us that this is the correct way to live our life?

Who are you to say that our culture and way of life is correct and thiers is wrong? Why the fkuc should we run around the globe imposing our way of life on everybody else because we feel it is more humane?

Like it or lump it some places in the world are full of nasty people and you need an even nastier person in power to keep them in line. It may not fit with your hoity toity moral high ground, but it doesn't make it any less true...

[shaunbhoy]

I don't recall us doing anything about Stalin and Pol-Pot. Guess why - NOT IN OUR INTERESTS! Hitler - very much in our interests.
Simple concept - do try and grasp it, won't you?

Selfishness runs very deep with you doesn't it sasguru? Your parents must be very proud. Weren't you the one who dodges his taxes too or was that someone else?

[Ardesco]

Ah personal insults, he must be realising that he's loosing.... :P

[sasguru]

Selfishness runs very deep with you doesn't it sasguru? Your parents must be very proud. Weren't you the one who dodges his taxes too or was that someone else?

Ah admitting defeat, then ....

Now let's wait for the "witty" comeback ....

[hattra]

I don't think daily sectarian violence was a feature of Saddam's regime. He effectively clamped down on it. The West has always done business with repulsive characters like him, so moral idignation is not a valid reason.
The fact is that the neo-cons made the oldest mistake of all - got into a war which did not have any clear goals or exit strategy. Either that or they were naive beyond belief about the likelihood of success.

Actually, daily sectarian violence WAS a feature of Iraqi life, even before Hussain came to power (wtf do you lot keep on calling him by his first name - is he a family friend or something?) - a lot of the "sectarian violence" took place within the so-called "judicial system", using the good old Stalinist principles of "if he's been accused, he must be guilty, hang him", or "Oh f**k, I can't be bothered to charge him, lets just beat him to death" - Abu Graihb prison was justly feared even back in the 50's. On top of that there was the Kurdish war (Halabja didn't happen in isolation - I've seen Kurdish villages that they simply used for artillery practice one morning - there are/were dozens all over Northern Iraq.

And the Kurds committed their own atrocities, bombing cafes in Kirkuk, and attacking the Iraqi army and oil infrastructure whenever they could. I remember my father telling me how he'd set off to go to work one day, and when he got to the army check-point, he found that the Kurds had massacred all the soldiers in the night and stuck their heads on poles at the side of the road.

And then, of course, there were the two million Iraqis killed in the real Gulf War, between Iran & Iraq, many of them being Southern Shia or Marsh Arabs, who were, justly or otherwise, suspected of being Iranian sympathisers and summarily executed by their own side. Oh, and the unknown thousands who were abducted from Kuwait and murdered in Hussain's gaols (relatives of friends amonst them).

[snaw]

This is not only about Iraq. Its about the judgement of our leaders

You cannot deny that our patronisingly magnanimous actions to democratise Iraq have failed owing to shortsighted and ill-concieved policies or as some people will say, policies crafted to obscure a hidden neo-con/capitalist agenda.

The fact that our leaders have substantially weakened our position in the global arena, even having more intelligence resource at their sdisposal than most other countries defies belief.

You cannot turn around and blame a traditionally clan structured, and theologically divided people for not embracing the ballotbox and not subscribing to a system and a set of values which is totally foreign to a large majority of the people.

If the democratisation of Iraq occured through diplomatic means instead of by force, you may or may not have had a democratic government if 5/10 years time with far less loss of life and destruction of property.

Sticking to the goal of a democratic Iraq, what is the prognosis now? 5/10/15 years to a stable governement, starvation, people dying of preventable diseases, a bombsite instead of a country? I am sure you will agree that that is by no means a fertile ground for representative government and democracy.

At the height of his atrocities, Saddam acted with the tacit approval of the US owing to his allegiances.

At least Sunni and Shia violence was slightly contained under SH, as for all his atrocities, he knew how to govern his country, unlike the two idealist tw@ts B and B who havent even got a clue where to start.

Democracy is not a universally understood concept, its a system of government underpinned by a constitution and upheld by a philosophy. It requires stability to be successfull, which is something that Iraq does not have ATM

I think SB just became your bitch.

[lukemg]

How we laughed and applauded as the brave mujahideen held out against the might of the russian army after they invaded afghanistan. Classic terrorist/resistance attacks causing death and mayhem.
Guess we thought the russians were clueless and we could do a better job on them. Oh and they are in Iraq also AND they have suicide bombers now as well !
Get out of Afghanistan - NOW, they have nothing we need, leave them to it. Iraq - We need the oil so have to stay to protect supply, form protective areas around the means of supply and leave the rest to sort it out in any way they want - anyone see us steaming into Rwanda as 100's of thousands were getting slaughtered - errr no.

[Mailman]

Here you go lukemg mailman hands luke a french made spanish surrender tissue

Mailman

[Logie]

People, don't be under the illusion that the government wants to save your arse. The Iraq war has been highly profitable for some, generally those pulling the strings (or close connections with). But the best bit is we all get to pay twice; us and the Iraqi's. Brilliant! (not)

$500 bln wasted on war in Iraq would have surely been enough to:
a) find cure for AIDS
b) find cure for cancer
c) find alternative fuels to avoid dependency on oil
d) lots more

Is not getting all that in exchange for Saddam being removed worth it? Hardly.