I've always agreed he needed to go. Just certainly not in the way we did it.
That's like saying to a stranger, "So, did you stop beating your wife?" NOBODY liked Saddam or wished him to stay, RWS. The issue was whether it was something that we should have done or not, and whether there were good decisions made on the road toward doing it. Personally, I'm trying to withhold judgement on it until we see how it turns out in a few years. (By the way, what in the world happened to we'll be out in a year or two? 2008 is the target now???) I'm afraid we may be simply aiding in the setting up of an Iranian satellite the minute we leave.
I gotta say that you'll probably hear no end of this, but this is over generalization, and erroneous over generalization at that. Not too many of us over on the left are part of the Saddam Hussein fan club. To be sure, while I may have bought my "I (heart) Saddam" shirt when he was pallin' around with DC folk like Rummie, I pretty much burned the thing by the summer of 1992.
No, as the two folks above have already said, it's not that the left loves, likes, or is even indifferent to Saddam, it's just that from beginning to the end we pretty much dissapprove of the way he was gotten rid of.
The snarkiness comes in when I point out that you would know this if you actually listened to some of us, instead of the filtered out and spun up versions that Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, etc. supply. I'm not saying agree with us, just that if you are going to speak for us, listen to us when we speak. That's all.
M
Oh the assumptions Mr. M!!! You aren't the first to suggest I get all my opinions from Rush or Hannity. When in reality I have linked to neither of them here. I rarely get to listen to them either.
And I also knew that you would say you were no fan of Saddam and he was bad,needed to go..ect... because I DO listen to you. But to go with the wife beating analogy, if you saw your neighbor beating his wife every day would try and stop him? I suppose you would look longingly at the phone and wish you could call 911, just not sure if that was the way to go about it. Thinking you should maybe talk to the man first. Meanwhile, the wife is getting her head bashed in.
It is all well and good to say that it is a great thing to be done with such a monster, but then to not support the actual getting rid of him makes your words nothing but hot air.
I don't call it over generalization. I call it simplicity....
How to get rid of Saddam:
Assasination - As I understand it, attempts were made but failed. No matter how well something is planned, the enemy always gets the vote.
UN - lol lol lol lol lol lol
Waiting for France and Germany to support us - reference UN comment.
Military action seems to me the only possible solution. As it is, I think we gave him too much time, while we tried to work with the UN.
It's easy to play arm chair general after plans have been executed and flaws and mistakes brought out as the enemy responds. But who here, could have planned anything that would have been flawless?
I have rarely found that simplicity and real solutions to complex problems mesh well. Conflict between countries is *never* that simple.
Also there is the issue of how we are deciding who to invade. It would seem that we have dozens of countries left to invade, with the current justification of the war. Situations like Gulf War I, Afghanistan, and Kosovo were very solidly justified I think. There needs to be consideration given to appearances, because it can affect reality on the ground.
Erik, I wasn't proposing a solution to any problem. I was pointing out the fallacy in his argument that Saddam had to go, just not the way we did it.
Shortly after the Iraq hostilities finished they found several mass graves – one of which was filled with the corpses of nearly 10,000 people. It further transpired that this had happened just over 12 months before…
My point – for more than 10 years Iraq has been THE most watched piece of real-estate in the world – satellite photos of every inch every hour, including thermal images, spy planes you name it.
So why did we not act before to such a horror? We would not have had to ask the permission of the rest of the world and everyone and I mean EVERYONE would have supported it.
We certainly had sufficient firepower available. Someone knew about this, so why did we have people making up reasons to go?
Okay, I realize that the Hannity generalization was unfair, but so are just about every left/liberal/democrat generalizations I hear. To be fair, I won't defend democrats from generalizations, but the others I can't sit idly by.
When it comes to the neighbor beating his wife, that's easy, I sit and call 911. I mean, the other day my wife and I were driving home from a local festival, and on a major street on the way home saw one guy actually start punching out the driver of a pick up right there in the middle of the street. It occurred in the traffic going the other way. I reached for my cell, but only then did the wife and I realize that we both left our cell phones home. I still called the police when I got hom to make sure that they knew about it.
But this is analogy arguing. Like the word evil, analogies are great for stirring emotion, but they are actually worse in really making a point. Iraq/Saddam is not a hornet's nest, a man beating his wife, or even a little tea pot. Let's talk about what Iraq is, and was, a complex human society with economic, military, religious, despotic, secular, and a million other factors. As it turns out, the only way to compare apples to apples, is to actually compare apples to apples.
M
I think analogies are an excellent way to make a complex point simple.
Which is why, I am thinking, you didn't argue with the actual point...
Actually, no. I addressed your original point by negating it. You quoted a news article which says Saddam Hussein is soon to stand trial. Straight info there nothing to argue. Than you said something about the Nightly news, then you said, "maybe some on the left will agree that this man/monster needed to go".
By explaining that this last bit was in and of itself erroneous, and is the only true point that you make in your original post, I think it can be said that I did argue the point by saying that you didn't have one.
"No, as the two folks above have already said, it's not that the left loves, likes, or is even indifferent to Saddam, it's just that from beginning to the end we pretty much dissapprove of the way he was gotten rid of." I could have only made it more clear by saying specifically "not only some, but most of the people on the left believe he had to go, we just don't like the way it was done."
Though I will point out that you did miss my point about analogies, so I will leave nothing to implication.
cont.
Analogies have several problems. The first one is exactly the one that you point out as a reason why you like them. They make a complex situation simple. Except by making it simple, they omit important details vital to actually understanding the concept. For example, using a pool table to explain atomic and sub-atomic collisions is a very useful teaching aid, and has been invaluable in helping students begin to grasp the concepts of nuclear physics, however; too much in the analogy is omitted to become a nuclear physicist.
That's the minor problem.
The major problem is similar, except it adds intent and spin to the omitted details. As we've already shown that analogies while good at making complex systems simple, are flawed in their inability to fully represent the situation at hand. This leaves analogies open for manipulation. In the engineering of an analogy, you simply omit those details that would either work against your point, or at least weaken it, while at the same time highlighting those details that emphasize and champion your point.
For example your wife beater analogy. You think that is the first time I've heard it? Beautifully engineered, the original masterfully negates every option until it comes down to either fight the man or let him kill you. It is followed up with some tear jerking right of passage stuff intended to tug at the audience's heart strings, and then it is over. High on emotion, low on facts. Poor argument, but excellent method for putting a voter in a booth.
M
The analogy does not suggest you kill him. It suggests you do SOMETHING to make him stop beating your wife.
If we all agree that Saddam had to go, then how would you suggest we have done it? Ask him nicely?
Sanctions didn't work, especially with the UN throwing money at him like water down a waterfall. He was sitting pretty and going no where. And he was insane with insane sons.
Scary combo for us.
Keep in mind when we invaded and found Saddam's son's rooms they had pictures of Jenna and Barbara Buah on their wall.
What do you think was on their minds? These are our President's daughters, after all.
Just a little window into the madness is all I am saying.
So, it seems that most of the "left" agrees that Saddam had to go, but they just didn't like the way we did it? And isn't it really an eye-opener that *NONE* of them offer another way they would have gotten rid of him? Or do they suppose that we could only have gotten rid of him if we had got France/the UN to go along with the plan?
The other thing interesting is the comment where "I saw someone beating someone else," but instead of stopping and doing *something* right then to stop the beating, the commenter waited to get home to call 911. That's another thing about the left--they never want to take action themselves to correct a bad situation--they always want someone else to do the dirty work that needs doing. And then they'll complain about the way the other person handled it.
No Garry, I think everyone agreed that he SHOULD go, but not that it was something we should have been doing on our own was the issue.
The guy is driving the other way in traffic, realized he couldn't call on his cell but should have gotten out and confronted the guy who could have had a gun? Who said he complained about how the police handled it? If you are going to argue, at least do it without making things up.
Okay, economic sanctions I can deal with, and I do remember two specific stories. One that sanctions were working, the other saying that the economic sanctions were exactly what kept Saddam from developing the WMD's that supposedly brought us over there in the first place.
My biggest belief, and it may be harsh, was that we should have stayed out of Iraq unless one of two requirements were met. A)Saddam posed a serious threat to the United States, or B) The Iraqi people themselves asked for our help. Those are the ony two things that could have validated an Iraqi invasion.
I know my logic can't be too far off since the biggest justifications furthered by the Bush administration either fall in one of these categories, or very close.
As for the posters? What does that really have to do with anything? I mean, I get what your saying but first, of all the problems that existed with the Hussein boys, a couple of posters is what you go with?
M
Actually, until the US acted along with the UK independantly from the UN - They were the UN in the M.East and had been taking actions almost on a monthly basis since the end of the first war. As I pointed earlier - The US knew one year before of actions by Saddam that they could off acted upon within the existing mandate - the questions are simple.... Why didnt they? Whos interest was it not to act then?
In Kosovo, the US stopped the UK from acting independently until they came onboard. When an action was finally taken the Serbs had finished their killing and raping and had gone home... the discusting part was that both the US and UK claimed it as a victory.
Yeah, Gary, what I saw lasted about 2 seconds, as I was going in the opposite direction on a three lane street posted at 50 MPH. And, yup, thanks E, the other thing I didn't mention is that while making my wife spin a U turn over a median, stopping to let me off so I could run about half a block through traffic unarmed to the scene of the apparent crime might have been the heroic thing, and up front the morally right thing to do, allow me to point out a few flaws in the logic.
a) As E points out, assume the guy has a gun, kills me, and now my daughter grows up without a father, and both my wife and daughter go on without, at the very least, the income I provide(I'm not going to assume they'd miss me or that they love me or anything).
Oh forget it...
M
Erik.... 2008?
By the way.... can you tell me when the occupation of Germany ended? I mean...when were all our troops out??????
You know what? I'll make it easy for yall. Break it down for me. Explain the goodness that is Iraq. Explain it with good solid evidence and without the use of rhetoric, nor analogies. Feel free to cover it all, the lead up, the justifications, the strategies behind it all, the benefits, etc.
On top of minimizing rhetoric, and banning analogies, let's also say that you are banned from two more things; no future implications, and no what ifs.
That's all I ask for, a good solid argument.
M
Here are your 2 requirements:
1) Saddam was a danger. Bush thought so, our CIA thought so, British intelligence thought so, Democrats on the hill thought so. Everyone that looked at the intelligence thought so. Everyone. It has been clearly proven that Saddam made it SEEM (unless he has them hidden across the borders, which is a possibility) that he had WMD's. Even his own officers thought he still possessed them. We know for a FACT that he had had them, since he gassed the Kurds with them. The facts of the UN probe proved that Saddam spent food for oil money weapons shopping around the world. We all agree he hated us and wanted to get back at us for Kawait. Our first Special OPs attack on a terrorists camp going into Baghdad was full of international terrorists. That is a FACT. (Operation Viking Hammer)
To me that was more than enough evidence to show Saddam was threat. No analogies.
2) The people can hardly ask for help when they are being brutally oppressed, so we will skip that one.
Ok, straight question...
In what way was Iraq a direct threat to the US?
That's all I wanted, thanks.
M
Sadam was still in power because BayOil in Texas was illegally purchasing oil from him, giving him the money he needed to continue in his ruthless ways.
Much like Muesollini, Sadam had the trains running on time. His political opponents were treated cruelly, and he had no actual means to defend his people, so we took him out before someone else did.
The U.N. did not purchase any of the oil in the Food for Oil Scandal, and it's quite clear that the U.S. did, therough BayOil and other off-shore satelites of U.S. Companies.
Anyone who was complicit in any way with payment of surcharges or kick-backs to Sadam should be tried as traitors. Anyone who purchased oil from Bayoil should be complicit in the crimes.
It was the American's people demand for government subsidized oil that resulted in the Food for Oil Scandal, and it was the American and British Governments complacent knowledge of the shipments being made by Sadam to Syria, Turkey, and Jordan.
The fact that we attempt to blame the U.N. for this scandal is beyond hypocracy.
seriously, Baghdad and Washington are 6193.94 miles apart...
what technology did saddam own that could possibly threaten the USA. Even if he had all the Bio and Nerve agents he could buy, where was his threat?
jandre, I thought you were intelligent enough enough to debate with. Your last two comments on this blog show me that you are blowing smoke.
Good Lord. The UN created the scandal.
Simon, The threat was that he would sell his technology and weapons to those most willing to come and here and attack. And we all know who that is.
As Andy would say "This isn't hard."
The terrorist camp in the North was not controlled by Sadam. These are the people that Sadam tried to gas into anihilation.
Sadam had very little concern (other than for the soveriegnty of his country) when we took this out, and we could have done it without the war, but we instead used it as justification for the war.
The U.N., the French, the Germans, the Russians and many others all had very strong doubts about the WMD's. There were very few places that had not been searched.
As for Sadam's officers believing he had them, they needed to believe that to stay loyal. Iran would have been there 20 minutes after we left the first time if Sadam had been foolish enough to publically state that he had no weapons.
Know, we have overextended our military, and Iran is sitting back laughing at us. They will not be backing off on their nuclear ambitions any time soon, and they know that there is very little we can do about it.
Syria is attempting to avoid a war with Isreal, and knows that the U.S. does not have the necessary man-power to fight on two fronts.
If we leave Iraq (and head to Syria), it will fall under heavy Iranian influence, if we stay, we don't have the troops to deal with anyone else.
At this point, the U.S. is hoping that somebody makes Isreal angry enough for them to step in and help us out, which is unlikley as the rest of the middle east is stepping very carefully out of Isreal's way right now.
Basically, if we don't get more troops soon, were in rough shape. Hey, maybe if we closed all the domestic military bases and sent everyone to other contries on a permanent basis, you know the whole "join the Army, see the world" pitch.
When to the May recruiting numbers get released?
It has been implied that military action is the only way that Hussein's regime could have been removed from power. I find this statement naive, given that the vast majority of Iraq's 25 million people aparantly did not support Hussein's rule.
Power is derived from a wide variety of sources, all of which are based upon the consent of the people. Hussein's actual power over his people did not appear to be exceptionally monolithic, since his power seemed to be principally based upon the threat of sanctions against the populace. The easiest way to remove Hussein's power would have been a campaign of nonviolent action, based upon the principle that if an unpopular regime, composed of probably only thousands of people, maintains its rule over 25 million people, it is because the people are allowing it to. If the people were to take action and refuse to give the regime their consent and cooperation, thus depriving it of its power, the regime would collapse.
So, there was no DIRECT threat, just here-say. We attacked him on suspicion that he may sell the stuff to bad people.
Simon, I guess you would have to ask your fellow democrats what they saw on the intelligence committee that convinced them that Saddam was such a threat that they voted to go to war.
Where did the money paid in Surcharges to Sadam come from? Not the U.N., it came from Oil companies in Syria, Jordan, Turkey and Texas.
John Negroponte, the former U.N. Ambassador for the U.S. and ambassador to Iraq, (with a history of illegally funding Contras in Nicaragua) who is now the National Intelligence Director, sat on the security counsel at the U.N. which approved each and every contract for the shipment of oil out of Iraq. The Economist explains how the U.S. ambassador let the shipments to Syria, Jordan and Turkey slip under the radar as follows:
"John Negroponte, America’s ambassador to the UN, admitted that while sitting on that committee, America had been more worried about keeping military goods out of Iraq than about corruption."
I don't see how if the U.S. Ambassador had the power and the knowledge necessary to stop the illegal shipments, but made a policy decision not to, and the fact that U.S. Companies were so heavily involved in the scandal, we can attempt to blame the U.N. for the illegal funding of Sadam with a straight face.
Sure their was corruption, the U.S. ambassador sanctioned it, got promoted to a new job, and now we want to blame the U.N. for it.
jandre, I don't understand what you are trying to prove with the military numbers.
The article ends saying that if the decline doesn't continue they will still meet their yearly goals.
I guess we will have to see. I'm impressed that so many are volunteering at all in such a dangerous war.
Maybe they care about freedom.
jandre, you just proved why we need someone like Bolton in the UN.
Simon, you just don't take chances with chemical weapons. They are nasty.
Remember when our soldiers first went into Iraq. Remember the gas masks and suits?? Do you think our govt would have gone to all that trouble if they honestly didn't believe Saddam had chemical weapons?
Anyway, these arguments have gone on and on. If you didn't think we should have gone into Iraq now, I will never convince you of it.
The question we face now is how to move forward.
RWS
errrr I'm not a democrat - i'm just stoking the fire a little
But my questions are plain, simple and fair.
And if no evidence can be found to support the intelligence reports - who is accountable for the civilian death toll.. Because they are unacceptable
jandre, I am glad you know so much about what Saddam thought.
I'm sure Saddam didn't control the terrorists. They are a bit hard to "control." I think he was just allowing to be.
I used to teach NBC, I know all about these weapons and they were briefly used in the first gulf war.
But we have these weapons too and weve sold them to many countries - oh yes, like Iraq
Just to clarify, the weapons sold to Iraq where used against (for the most part) Iran
Historically, the Northern portion of Iraq has always considered itself self-governing.
Sadam is endlessly accused of killing hundreds of thousands of his own people, when in fact these people never considered him their leader. (The number gets smaller as the trial approaches)
He did not have control over the area where the terrorist camp was, so you can either point out the fact that he gassed his own people, or you can claim that there was a terrorist training camp within his jurisdiction, but to do both is simply showing a lack of understanding of the war we are in.
Simon, Surely you read all the arguments at the time about what Saddam had and his developing programs. There is no need to repeat it all here. We know he had WMD's and used them. We know he wanted to control the region. We know he allowed international terrorists to camp. We know he was a brutal oppressor.
We are changing the face of the middle east and spreading democracy. Libya willingly gave up it's weapons program because of our show of strength.
What we are fighting for here is an end to radical Islam. We are hoping to bring freedom to a place long hungry for it. We are hoping to end the terrorists grip on the region and provide a future where we will never have to endure another 9-11.
I HATE war. I hate innocent deaths. But if this works, then it will have been worth it. Just as the men and women who died in WWI and WWII gave their lives so that the world could be free.
It isn't our fault that this evil has spread. If none of this existed then no one would die. If you want to look for blame Simon, you can look at the face of the terrorist.
I looked into the face of a terrorist. But who the hell are we to have the right to change a whole region of the planet when we can't even agree on the politics of the west.
911 was bad, but pro-rata to any incident in any other country it wasn't that huge. Is all this being fought because our pride has been hurt? the first ever real attack on the mainland US. We're fighting in an area of warfare we know little about and have consulted no one on it - just stated 'you're either for us or against us'... what the hell kind of statement is that to show the world that we're a peaceful people.
Afghanistan is one thing and I believe we have done nothing but good there. But like it or not we if the war against terror is to be won - what the hell are we wasting time in Iraq for?
jandre, I just read an Iraqi blog the other day that says they are finding new graves EVERY DAY. I don't the numbers are decreasing. The Kurds may not have considered Saddam their leader, but I'm thinking Saddam thought so. which is why he gassed them.
I can certainly say there was a terrorist camp there because it's true. I doubt SERIOUSLY if Saddam would have allowed those with such belief and weapons to stay there without his permission. But then I don't know Saddam's mind as you do.
Being in the USMC, I have to partialy agree with Simon. There is a general feeling around that we have side stepped the real fight some where. It's like we're waiting around to be told where the real bad guys are, instead of being shot at by local resistance all day long.
But thats all I agree with.
I don't know Sadam's mind, but I do know his military strength was not what he claimed it was.
I also know that Terrorists training in Iraq were more likely to attack Baghdad than they were Washington, and that Baghdad was ripe for the picking.
If Sadam thought he had the military strength to wipe out the Kurds and take back Northern Iraq do you think he wouldn't have done it?
I don't claim to know what Sadam was thinking, but rather than simply buying the story that he was a lunatic madman whose heart was purely evil, I respect other world leaders enough to believe that even they may have been attempting to govern their nations to the best of their abilities. I am also not afraid to state my thoughts on what may have been Sadam's rationale in allowing this tradgedy to happen, as I believe a close analysis of it may allow us to avoid these types of tradgedies in the future.
If I'm the only one who has any interest in how Sadam, the leader of the Secular middle east ended up so completely impotent, then our hopes for avoiding the situation in the future through diplomacy are slim.
As I write this I anticipate your reply and would like to point out that we are not at war against all people who follow the Islamic Religion. In fact, the Bush family, and many other internationally wealthy families are still doing business with many Islamic people. We don't hate them as a nation, and our goal is not to wipe them of the face of the earth.
oh, and could you link to the Iraqi blog. I don't find many which offer commentary such as you mentioned, and would like to broaden my sources of information.
Here is one that spends most of it's time simply describing the situation, but offers little in terms of political commentary.
riverbendblog isnt biased? LOL
You know, thoughout this conflict the speach that Brit Lt Col Tim Collins gave his regiment still rings in my ears.
We go to liberate, not to conquer.
We will not fly our flags in their country
We are entering Iraq to free a people and the only flag which will be flown in that ancient land is their own.
Show respect for them.
There are some who are alive at this moment who will not be alive shortly.
Those who do not wish to go on that journey, we will not send.
As for the others, I expect you to rock their world.
Wipe them out if that is what they choose.
But if you are ferocious in battle remember to be magnanimous in victory.
Iraq is steeped in history.
It is the site of the Garden of Eden, of the Great Flood and the birthplace of Abraham.
Tread lightly there.
You will see things that no man could pay to see
-- and you will have to go a long way to find a more decent, generous and upright people than the Iraqis.
You will be embarrassed by their hospitality even though they have nothing.
Don't treat them as refugees for they are in their own country.
Their children will be poor, in years to come they will know that the light of liberation in their lives was brought by you.
If there are casualties of war then remember that when they woke up and got dressed in the morning they did not plan to die this day.
Allow them dignity in death.
Bury them properly and mark their graves.
It is my foremost intention to bring every single one of you out alive.
But there may be people among us who will not see the end of this campaign.
We will put them in their sleeping bags and send them back.
There will be no time for sorrow.
The enemy should be in no doubt that we are his nemesis and that we are bringing about his rightful destruction.
There are many regional commanders who have stains on their souls and they are stoking the fires of hell for Saddam.
He and his forces will be destroyed by this coalition for what they have done.
As they die they will know their deeds have brought them to this place. Show them no pity.
It is a big step to take another human life.
It is not to be done lightly.
I know of men who have taken life needlessly in other conflicts.
I can assure you they live with the mark of Cain upon them.
If someone surrenders to you then remember they have that right in international law and ensure that one day they go home to their family.
The ones who wish to fight, well, we aim to please.
If you harm the regiment or its history by over-enthusiasm in killing or in cowardice, know it is your family who will suffer.
You will be shunned unless your conduct is of the highest -- for your deeds will follow you down through history.
We will bring shame on neither our uniform or our nation.
(On Saddam's chemical and biological weapons.)
It is not a question of if, it's a question of when.
We know he has already devolved the decision to lower commanders, and that means he has already taken the decision himself.
If we survive the first strike we will survive the attack.
As for ourselves, let's bring everyone home and leave Iraq a better place for us having been there.
Our business now is north.
When are we getting our cheap oiiiiil?
Too much, here was the most absurd argument (IMHO):
Sadam is endlessly accused of killing hundreds of thousands of his own people, when in fact these people never considered him their leader.
Oh, ok, you got us. It was thousands of not his people.
That certainly makes it better. Sheesh I'm glad we cleared that up.
Oh, and Salman Pak is less than 20 miles from Baghdad.
Doofus.
lkbts, That was quite beautiful.
Thanks.
Dave, *smile* Yes. It doesn't seem to matter what the people or Saddam thought of each other, he still gassed them.
Can you believe we even have to HAVE this conversation?????
I heard about it and went on the BBC website to find it. It transpires that it wasnt a prepared speech, it was straight off the cuff.
That speech totally sums the british army up. Excellent, did you read about their bayonet charge? 20 soldiers in land rovers with out armour were ambushed by around 100 iraqis. The jumped from there vehicles and took cover for about 1 minute to assess the situ before the call to fix bayonets came. They charged the Iraqis leaving 72 dead or wounded. There were no injuries or loss of life in the brits ranks.
S**T! really?
didn't they invented the bayonet charge?
I've heard stuff like that about them. Can't say I've seen it myself. It must have an effect on the terrorists though.
Simon, are you in the military?
I may have spent a little time in the Army...
Why?
It's just that I've read quite a few of your comments over the last few days and came to the conclusion that you're very knowledgable on these things or completely nutz
Oh in that case i'm nuts then
LOL
Chet, no racist comments or name calling please. I'm going to edit that.
ooops
"If the people were to take action and refuse to give the regime their consent and cooperation, thus depriving it of its power, the regime would collapse."
Leftwingglimmer, right up until the time the trigger is pulled. That's the whole reason that Saddam was able to stay in power over there: fear and violence.
As has been said, "Gandhi was lucky to pull his peaceful resistance thing on the British." As Harry Turtledove touched on in a short story once, if he had tried it on the Nazis, it would have resulted in mass graves and mass terror.
Hey... kinda like Iraq, eh?
If the whole country mobilizes, two things will happen: the regime will realize that executing the whole population, one by one, will not be effective in re-gaining power; and/or those doing the executions will surrender to the people, mutiny, etc. Remember those in Hussein's army were still citizens of Iraq, and they likely had the same greivances with his rule that any Iraqi did.
I agree with the statement that Gandhi was lucky in his campaign to some extent; analysis of the Indian nonviolent struggle reveals that it was quite poorly organized and carried out. However, I beleive your quote is implying that nonviolent struggle in general would be ineffective against a harsh opponant. This I reject. Regardless of how ruthless, powerful, or willing to use violence a regime is, its power is still rooted in the same basic sources that all political power is rooted in. If the people of a country ruled by a generally unpopular government, or the people of a country invaded and conquered by a unpopular foreign force, are willing to stand up to the threat of - or even actual occurance of, as some people will doubtlessly have to, as in any struggle - violence or death, and consciously deny the unpopular government of their cooperation, they can destroy any regime.
Though I do not find Gandhi's campaign to be exceptionally effective evidence of how nonviolent action can work, it did prove one major thing: people are capable of continuing their struggle nonviolently, even in the face of brutal violence.
Yes, if the whole country mobilizes. Guess what? It didn't. Know why? Saddam DID have supporters, in the Ba'ath party. A good many of them were given substantial power, and they used it, and were happy to use it. Think they wanted to let go of it?
Nuh-uh. So they were able to crush any uprisings against Saddam with extreme cruelty. Remember the gassing of the Kurds? Remember the mass graves that we're STILL finding? Face it, Glimmer, you're dreams of what could have been FAILED in the face of reality.
Many of the Iraqi people may have wanted Saddam gone. Well and good. They didn't have the power to do it against the brutality of the regime.
Yes, if the entire nation of people rose up against him, perhaps they could have ousted him. But they didn't, and realistically nobody could have expected them (or any other nation in a similar situation) to do so. Saddam wasn't going away without outside intervention.
Regarding Gandhi vs. the Nazis; you think the SS would have shrunk from killing a million or more of Gandhi's followers? Read your history, Glimmer.
Jandre - "Sure their was corruption, the U.S. ambassador sanctioned it, got promoted to a new job, and now we want to blame the U.N. for it."
From the same piece in the Economist that you cited:
Allegations of wrongdoing in the programme are nothing new; Britain and America complained of this before the war. But the breadth and depth of the alleged fraud now go far beyond what was thought at the time.
The scheme appeared to allow its beneficiaries to say they had never taken money from the Iraqi government. The list of alleged beneficiaries includes a senior UN official and top French, Indonesian and Russian politicians.
Also, the corruption that the article states that Negroponte was less concerned about than restricting military goods had to do with Saddam getting kickbacks from vendors of overpriced humanitarian supplies. I can't imagine how this means that he "sanctioned" what was going on.
Nice selective quoting, though.
Saddam DID have poison gas weapons. Or do some of you refuse to see the evidence that he used them against Iran in the 1980-1988 war, and against the Kurds after Gulf War I? The entire question was, what did he do with them? And since Saddam was playing shell games with Hans Blix, nobody could verify that he actually disposed of the weapons.
Now, if you happen to really believe that Saddam got rid of those weapons, I've got some prime real estate (aka swampland) to sell you! It's always good to find folks who are so gullible!
Yes he's used them - hell, we supplied him with most it and we have used the stuff too and still retain vast stocks -its in all in the history books.
But, unless we actually find the stuff we went to war for - it's all just hearsay.
If we find NBC stocks in Iraq, the arguments will stop... If we don't ever find something, then like it or not we acted illegaly.
Personally I'm all for kicking the ass of the bad guys - but I feel Iraq has been an expensive diversion from the real aims.
However... who ever we are, we always knew that one day we would return to Iraq. We have done, it's just a shame they put so much 'spin' on trying to get us there.
Freedom is a two edge sword. It can be the most fantastic blissful thing or can result in the most painful actions.
Freedom : the condition or right of being able or allowed to do, say, think, etc. whatever you want to, without being controlled or limited:
While it is a truly great thing, it bears its own shackles of responsibility and a requirement for wisdom.
Yes we still have laws that bind us and we have to have. After all, I’m free to buy a gun and go and shoot someone. And the penalties exist to enforce and dissuade us from such actions.
It is a fine balance, a tight rope and some countries have a bill of rights to guide that freedom where others do not.
I think Great Britain is the only western country that has no bill of rights at all. Yet we see that country as extremely free.
We have no power or rights to tell other countries what to do because, who are we to make that judgement. It’s also ironic while the only country not to have a bill of rights is the country with the biggest immigration problem in the world.
But Freedom comes at a price, it always has and it always will.
To be free, we have to let our guard down to a degree if we don’t at what point will free America become fortress America. Every free democratic nation has been constantly plagued with terrorism from time to time and on our home soil we’ve been lucky over the years, very lucky until 911. Most previous acts have been from our own nationals.
It is when we let the terrorist paranoia effect us in such a way – we loose our freedoms… And we’re doing it to ourselves right now – the worse part is we know it.
And I'm as right wing as god could make
the only country not to have a bill of rights is the country with the biggest immigration problem in the world.
Says who? I'm a brit who lived there for 36 of my 40 years and didn't notice we had the biggest immigration problem in the world. I noticed some people who hankered after the old days of Empire and still wanted to be able to order the "kaffirs" around saying we did, but no-one took a blind bit of notice of them. We Brits always thought France, Germany and even the US had the problems, not us.
Regards, C
I was watching something on bbc world about how since the balkans people have been flocking there. huge numbers of Iraqis and east europeans also. They had people sneaking in via that channel tunnel and hanging under trucks. It's the single biggest Issue over there right now.
I think they've gained some control over it now, but the last nine tears has been mayhem.
Aparently they have huge detention centres all over the place.
Ha ha, thats really funny, Cernig has no idea whats going on in his own country.
I guess that explains a few things LOL
If they have no Bill of Rights, we now know why Cernig came over here, but I don't think I could get married to someone just so I could stay in another country LOL LOL
But at least he got his green card LOL
Oh, spiteful immigrant humor.
Regarding nonviolent revolution: I certainly realize that the Iraqis never united and mobilized against Hussein. Effective nonviolent action requires planning and education to the masses. The general public's typical dismissal of nonviolence as a legitimate means of revolution usually prevents these two preconditions from ever taking place.
Effective planning isn't very possible under a totalitarian state, now is it? When the jackbooted thugs can break down the door whenever a group of people gather, it's hard to plan anything. It's part of the gig.
Saying that it requires education and planning under a despotic rule is like saying it requires antimatter and dilithium; doesn't matter how much you try, you still ain't gonna get it.
Commenting by HaloScan
