CameronPoe wrote:
Twist wrote:
CameronPoe wrote:
I read your post as far as the sentence above and promptly stopped. War in Iraq is ensuring that Americans have 'freedom'? OMGROFLMAO. There is one born every day.
Funny thing was I was just reading your post about "intelligent dabating"... Where do I write that it's the AMERICANS freedom that's at stake ? Or do you SERIOUSLY believe that the rest of the word has no claim to life liberty and the persuit of happiness ?
yes, the IS one born everyday.. and if You cannot regocnize the plight of other people, then YOU'RE that one.
I assumed because you are American that you must somehow imagine that the Iraq war is helping you to remain free, when it is pretty obvious that it has nothing to do with US freedom. I mean you can't seriously believe the Iraq war was an altruistic endeavour. My apologies. I do recognise that people elsewhere should enjoy liberty and freedom but they must earn it - it can't be handed to them. I'm sure a growing number of Iraqis would prefer the tyrannical regime of Saddam now to the unimaginable chaos they have to suffer today as a result of being 'liberated', from a simple quality of life, ability to the go to the shops, etc. point of view. LOL. We in the west need to butt out of developing nations affairs, other than to supply them with financial aid. Democracy cannot be applied to a nation or region, especially at gunpoint - countries
evolve into democracy at their own pace.
Lol... You couldn't be more wrong.. I'm in fact NOT american. However, I appreciate the american effort (as I posted earlier), because noone else seems to be willing to stand up to the shitheads in the world. Reagan took no shit from the soviets, and now there are half a billion people who are free from torture and oppression. Look at korea, afghanistan, south africa, egypt, many countries in south america.... All have had dictators shot or forcibly removed. And IMO they're all the better for it... I've visited quite a few of these countries, and while the old people there sometimes miss the stability of the past (shit, i know it's no fun not to have food on the table every day), none of them want the uncertainty of life to return.
Believe it or not, but most people prefer a "bad" life to no life at all.
You say that countries evolve into democracy on their own. That may be true, but when was Iraq ever a country ? If you look as its history, it is a "collection" of states (13 I believe) who were all violently conquered through a period of time... Saddam wanted Kuwait to be the next one, and I serisouly doubt he gave up on that idea just because the US told him to.
So in point of fact I challenge you to find just three examples of ANY country that has thrown away the shackles of oppression by itself. In fact, I think you will be hard pressed to find one. According to historians, NO country has ever done so without external support/force (yes this includes america, or have you forgotten how the french and other non-english loving europeans helped you/them ?).
I agree that the war was not fought over altruistic goals, but that doesn't mean that the byproduct of it... The freedom of the Iraqi people isn't a good thing. You are quite right that financial aid does precious little for developing nations. Give a man a fish, and he will eat for a day, TEACH a man how to fish, and he will eat the rest of his life. I belive that. I SUPPORT that, and you are right about it. However, the war in Iraq wasn't started over a matter of financial aid. It was started because Saddam would not live up to his end of the bargain after the first war. He would NOT comply with the UN resolutions, he would NOT comply with the weapons inspectors, and he would NOT respect the nofly zones, and most importantly, he would NOT stop killing his own people.
Now assume that he HAD WMD, assume that he IS insane, assume that he HAS the largest army in the middle east, and assume that he couldn't care less about the opinions of the world, additionally assume that he gives exactly a rats ass about human life, and further assume that had had a grudge to settle over the first war against iraq.... Wouldn't YOU think that he was going to be a problem ?
Whatever the facts are, there was no reason to assume otherwise, and based solely on the information that was getting out of Iraq, I agree with the goverments that the reason for going to war was there. And the goal of getting rid of Saddam was achieved. Yes, there's a cost to pay NOW, but IMO it will be worth it in the end.
As for the assanine comment some other bloke made about people dying BECAUSE of the american occupation, I can only say: Try to follow the news. There's a nice court case going on right now, in the Hague, about how Saddam gassed, tortured and shot MILLIONS of HIS OWN people (not to mention how many Iranians he killed, but that's besides the point). I'm sure THEY appeciated being tortured, gassed and worse on a daily basis. There may be some people who oppose the change of regime. Who ever said this war would be over in 2 weeks ?
Change takes time, sometimes a LONG time. But as long as the average citizen gets to live a safer and more productive life, and is free from unjust persecution (read the human rights.. I'm quite aware that the US has refused to sign the geneva convention and follow the accords set forth regarding human rights, but they still expect the rest of the world to follow them), then isn't that a goal in itself ?
Yes I'm quite aware that the US's motives for entering the war wasn't entirely for the benefit of the Iraqi people. But the government KNEW going in that it was for the long haul. They KNEW it would take many YEARS to ensure the change of regimes, but when a country decides to take it upon themselves to help others in this maner, I'm not going to question their ulterior motives, as long as a common goal of bettering the lives of other people is achieved. I'm damned PROUD that my country is helping the US with ground troops and logistics support. I feel bad for the people in the middle east, that we (the west) had to take military action to enforce a change of regimes, but in the end, I believe that it was ultimately required of us, because noone in the middle east had the power to overthrow Saddam.
And when it comes right down to it... How many civilians have died in Iraq in the last 3 years (violent deaths from acts of terrorism or the likes) ? 80.000 ? 100.000 ? 200.000 ? Shit, Saddam could kill that many before BREAKFAST when he was on a roll. So why would ANYONE in their right minds even CONSIDER that the Iraqies are not better off now ?
Sure yeah, the Sunni and Shiites have exchanged places, so that the 10% aren't ruling the 90% anymore.... I guess the 10% are pissed about that. But when was "I win because I have the biggest gun" ever considered democratic ? I think the last time was before the abolishment of the slavery around the time of the american civil war. Slavery being something that was ALSO opposed by the majority of the world, Just like Saddams rule was opposed by the rest of the world (look at the UN resolutions, even the FRENCH agreed that Saddam was out on a limb). Now ask the average BLACK american.. Do you THINK he would rather have slavery never abolished ? I REALLY doubt that. So in 20 or 50 years, go ask the average Iraqi if he'd rather have Saddam never overthrown.
