BF2S Forums 550 metric tons of "yellowcake"

konfusion wrote:

Eh, lowing:
Saddam may have been a dictator, but he held the place together. Countries need strong leaders in bad times. Yes, he was horrible, but he was also needed. There was no planning for replacing what he did for the country - only what he did to it.

-kon

No country needs a leader who takes little girls out of school for his personal under age brothel I have pictures of the place.

No country needs a leader who lets his sons pull people out of a car and kill them because he wants the car, his wife, or both.

Yeah I guess fear and murder is one way to hold a country together.

Oh, please, there are far worse than him, and you aren't leaping into the ring to take them on.

M.O.A.B wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Oh, please, there are far worse than him, and you aren't leaping into the ring to take them on.

Whose worse than Saddam these days?

Than Shwe?

CameronPoe wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Oh, please, there are far worse than him, and you aren't leaping into the ring to take them on.

Whose worse than Saddam these days?

Than Shwe?

Saddam was still probably ahead of him in terms of 'bad stuff' carried out.

B.Schuss wrote:

lowing wrote:

konfusion wrote:

Eh, lowing:
Saddam may have been a dictator, but he held the place together. Countries need strong leaders in bad times. Yes, he was horrible, but he was also needed. There was no planning for replacing what he did for the country - only what he did to it.

-kon

No country needs a leader who takes little girls out of school for his personal under age brothel I have pictures of the place.

No country needs a leader who lets his sons pull people out of a car and kill them because he wants the car, his wife, or both.

Yeah I guess fear and murder is one way to hold a country together.

Of course Saddam was a prick. That's not the issue here. But overthrowing him should have been the job of his own countrymen, not an external power. Because external power always means external influence, and external interests. And let's face it, none of those have served the people of the middle east well in the last couple of decades.

If the iraquis are ever to be free, they must do it on their own terms, on their own feet, on their own responsibility. There is only so much you can achieve with foreign troop presence.
Ultimately, we must allow the iraquis to be the masters of their own fate. They may fail ( according to our standards ), and the outcome might not be what we hope for, but in the end, it is their country, and they should be free to choose whatever form of government they consider best for their people.


sorry, what was the topic again ?

The thing is though, the ME can't afford to lose Western interests, its the only thing keeping them going. Take Dubai for example, originally survived on oil, now on tourism and its probs one of the most popular places to go. There's nothign to say the rest of the ME can't do that, but in order to they need Western influence and investors. I don't think that the regular Iraqis would have been able to overthrow Saddam either, his troops were poorly led to begin with so the civilians were likely even less organised and would have been terrified to make a move. Now, with Western training, weapons, equipment, they can start to take control in a better way than Saddam ever would and maintain it without having to resort to fear tactics.

Last edited by M.O.A.B (2008-07-08 01:51:02)

M.O.A.B wrote:

ZombieVampire! wrote:

Oh, please, there are far worse than him, and you aren't leaping into the ring to take them on.

Whose worse than Saddam these days?

Does it matter who is worse? A despot is a despot.  if you're going to take out one then at least be consistent and take out the lot of them.

Sorry, but judging who is 'worse' and plotting them on a scale in order of quantify their tinpot behaviour is retarded.

M.O.A.B. wrote:

The thing is though, the ME can't afford to lose Western interests, its the only thing keeping them going. Take Dubai for example, originally survived on oil, now on tourism and its probs one of the most popular places to go. There's nothign to say the rest of the ME can't do that, but in order to they need Western influence and investors. I don't think that the regular Iraqis would have been able to overthrow Saddam either, his troops were poorly led to begin with so the civilians were likely even less organised and would have been terrified to make a move. Now, with Western training, weapons, equipment, they can start to take control in a better way than Saddam ever would and maintain it without having to resort to fear tactics.

the middle east is not going to lose western interest, as long as they have oil, i.e. for at least another generation, maybe more. After that, as you said, they'll simply have to figure out a different way to feed their people. Resources aren't evenly split among people of all nations. Nothing you can do about that. Learn , adapt, overcome.

Germany, for example, hasn't had any oil to profit from, and yet we have managed to make a name for ourselves economically.
If the people of the middle east can find business models outside of the oil, there is every indication western influence and western money will remain in the region.

About the ability of the iraquis to overthrow Saddam themselves..well, I don't know. The history of revolutions has shown that any nation can overthrow a corrupt or fascist government, if they really want it. And by "want it" I mean the will to sacrifice themselves for the sake of their country's future. Giving your life so that future generations can live in peace and freedom.
Of course, that has gotten more difficult, as technology has progressed, and fascist regimes and dictators have much more tools to control their people today, than back in the days, but still, germany in '89 showed that it can be done. And believe me, east germany was a very sophisticated totalitarian regime.

And who would have believed that one day, the british colonies in north america would surpass Britain in world domination ?
Nothing is impossible. Granted, you need the right people at the right time, but apart from that, it's totally in every man's own hands.

I never denied that Saddam was a prick - jesus! I'm just saying that he kept the country in check. He kept the people from hating each other... Maybe it's the whole "having a common enemy" thing that kept the people together - and now they need a new one. I'm not sure, but you can all see how little of an idea anyone seems to have of what to do now.

-kon