Today: one year since USA gave back power to Iraq

[tranceshakeel]

Bur br other u must know that America supported rather prepared saddam in the gulf war against iran to damage iran popular revolution and then trapped him into kuwait. saddam was, no doubt stupid enough to be used by America but it was and it is America spreading dirty tricks everywhere in the world

[///M]

And they went back and fixed the problem.

Be thankful for once.

[tranceshakeel]

This is not the power giving rather power snatching as iraq has no regular army, no system in the whole country, no security, complete anarchy, only america pumping out oil and trying to take maximum time to stock maximum oil no matter how many lives does his plan cost

[///M]

So what do you call the Iraqi government?

Let me guess, a puppet regime?

[tranceshakeel]

ya, they went back to fix the problem but the question is that why did they create the problem initially

[tranceshakeel]

of course a puppet regime working under the umbrella of america. how can u say that a popular regime. Had it been a popular regime there had been no need of americans to be there any more,,, and that is what is just according to americans plans and wishes

[tranceshakeel]

and what is ur opinion about afghanistan. American collected the then called Mujahideen from all over the world especially the muslim world to fight against the second super power russia and when the purpose was obtained these mujahideen became terrorists in the eyes of americas. So all these are america's self created evils and then self suggested remedies. So evils after evils and destruction after destruction by america

[Firecat]

First thing I want to mention is this kurds business. For right now, I will dismiss it as nothing but wartime propaganda. Both the Iranians and Iraqis were using chemical weapons, the possibility that the kurds were gassed by accident or by the Iranians is still likely. Furthermore, let's not forget that America hedged their bets by supporting both countries with arms.

As a supporter of revolution, I cannot rally behind an imperialistic occupation of a sovereign nation under the guise of "spreading democracy and freedom" ....If America truly wanted this, they should have propped up a popular rebellion/insurgency to overthrow Saddam.

[justin syder]

As a supporter of revolution, I cannot rally behind an imperialistic occupation of a sovereign nation under the guise of "spreading democracy and freedom" ....If America truly wanted this, they should have propped up a popular rebellion/insurgency to overthrow Saddam.

Firecat, How sure are you that it would have worked? Bay of Pigs ring a bell?

Im sure you think a rebellion would work in China or N.Korea. It took 3 weeks to rid of Saddam and his regime, you show me a plan that would work in that time or less by using a rebellion, which in my opinion would cause more bloodshed than that of the 3 week war, and I'll side with you on that.

Also how can you honestly call it an "imperialistic occupation"? A bit silly in my opinion, show me an "imperialistic occupation" that helped with security in the country, allowed free elections, transfered power to the countries own Govt, their own ppl, and helped in the rebuilding process and setting up infrastructure.

Im sure you have a list of those type of "imperialistic occupations".

Also, to those claiming we are in Iraq for oil, take a look at oil prices. At $60 per barrell, it doesnt really seem like we are pumping and taking advantage of their oil.

[jayjaya29]

I do not think we are in Iraq for oil as the main reason, but I think that if a nation like Iraq was in a non oil-containg part of the world, we wouldn't have invaded. Like lets say Iraq was positioned in the middle of Brazil or somewhere like that for an example, I do not think we would have gone. I also think Bush pushed for the war was to finished what his father didn't, and that is to eliminate Saddam.

To be honest, I think that looking at the situation now, I think we would have been better off doing this in Iran not Iraq. I will get a lot of flack about this, but I feel this way very strongly. I do not like being lied to and then going to war on a lie. If WMD were found in Iraq, I would feel more compelled to go to war with Iraq, but none were found there, so whats the reason for going. With Bush changing his mind on why we went every month, I do not trust him at all with anything else.

[Ultra_Kool_Dude]

Originally Posted by justin syder

Firecat, How sure are you that it would have worked? Bay of Pigs ring a bell?

Im sure you think a rebellion would work in China or N.Korea. It took 3 weeks to rid of Saddam and his regime, you show me a plan that would work in that time or less by using a rebellion, which in my opinion would cause more bloodshed than that of the 3 week war, and I'll side with you on that.

Also how can you honestly call it an "imperialistic occupation"? A bit silly in my opinion, show me an "imperialistic occupation" that helped with security in the country, allowed free elections, transfered power to the countries own Govt, their own ppl, and helped in the rebuilding process and setting up infrastructure.

Im sure you have a list of those type of "imperialistic occupations".

Also, to those claiming we are in Iraq for oil, take a look at oil prices. At $60 per barrell, it doesnt really seem like we are pumping and taking advantage of their oil.

Thoroughly Owned. 8)

My opinion is that it is too early to tell if the war is/was a success. If in ten years Iraq has a stable uncorrupted democratic government, then I would say it is a success regardless of the unclear US motives (WMDs?).

Do anti-US feelings in Europe really run as high as they appear to from the posts of people on this board?

I can tell you one thing for certain: If I lived in Iraq under Saddam I would be grateful to the US.

[///M]

Originally Posted by Firecat

As a supporter of revolution, I cannot rally behind an imperialistic occupation of a sovereign nation under the guise of "spreading democracy and freedom" ....If America truly wanted this, they should have propped up a popular rebellion/insurgency to overthrow Saddam.

A revolution is fine and dandy with me, but the whole concept and urge to revolt amongst arabs went out the door when Nasser died. Simple as that, we are too in love with our dictators. Look at the last attempt at a revolt in Iraq right after the Gulf War.

I think the overall picture in the middle east improved after the US invasion. Here's what happened since:

- Qaddafi had some sense slapped into him after seeing what happened to his fellow arab dictator.

- The Lebanese grew sick of Syrian domination and now anti-Syrians control most of the government.

- The next Egyptian elections are going to be multi-candidate.

- The spread of democratic processes through out the gulf, some countries more democtratic than others.

Just as predicted, and mind you this is a claim that I doubted and constantly refuted, democracy is starting to spread in the middle east. Hell, even the Palestinians had an election.

[Firecat]

[quote="justin syder"]

As a supporter of revolution, I cannot rally behind an imperialistic occupation of a sovereign nation under the guise of "spreading democracy and freedom" ....If America truly wanted this, they should have propped up a popular rebellion/insurgency to overthrow Saddam.

Originally Posted by justin syder

Firecat, How sure are you that it would have worked? Bay of Pigs ring a bell?

Yes. It does. Do you know why it didn't work? Partly because the Cuban people at that time were extremely supportive of Castro and the revolution. It was flawed logic that lead America to believe that the people would be grateful and join them in overthrowing Castro.

According to you and others here, the Iraqi people hated Saddam. Therefore they would have supported overthrowing him like they were ready back in the first gulf war but did not receive any support.

Another reason why I think revolution would have been better is because the idea of an "occupation" would be non-existent. France didn't liberate america from the british, they just helped them out. That worked out well, no? America support the afghans versus the soviets, of course afterwards they hung them out to dry. But if they had continued to help, It would have worked out pretty well. Don't you think? But it wasn't in this country's interest at that time. In hindsight (post 9-11), I'm sure they would rather have stayed around.

Originally Posted by justin syder

Im sure you think a rebellion would work in China or N.Korea. It took 3 weeks to rid of Saddam and his regime, you show me a plan that would work in that time or less by using a rebellion, which in my opinion would cause more bloodshed than that of the 3 week war, and I'll side with you on that.

I think a rebellion would work better than a military invasion, yes. Coups have happened many times and in relatively short times. America has overthrown their fair share of governments (in a matter of days/weeks), unfortunately it was for all the wrong reasons which hampers any chance of great success (long-term).

Originally Posted by justin syder

Also how can you honestly call it an "imperialistic occupation"? A bit silly in my opinion, show me an "imperialistic occupation" that helped with security in the country, allowed free elections, transfered power to the countries own Govt, their own ppl, and helped in the rebuilding process and setting up infrastructure.

Im sure you have a list of those type of "imperialistic occupations".

Are you telling me that America isn't calling the shots there?

and I think the number of government contracts is self-evident of the imperialistic nature of this war. 100,000+ troops qualifies as an occupation. As outlined by international law, the onus of security and rebuilding falls on the occupying force. Does America want a medal for following international law? For once in their existence, barely.

Wouldn't you say that influencing the politics (and economy) of sovereign nations would constitute imperialism? Maybe not direct through an occupation, but by proxy.

[Firecat]

Originally Posted by ///M

A revolution is fine and dandy with me, but the whole concept and urge to revolt amongst arabs went out the door when Nasser died. Simple as that, we are too in love with our dictators. Look at the last attempt at a revolt in Iraq right after the Gulf War.

I think the overall picture in the middle east improved after the US invasion. Here's what happened since:

- Qaddafi had some sense slapped into him after seeing what happened to his fellow arab dictator.

- The Lebanese grew sick of Syrian domination and now anti-Syrians control most of the government.

- The next Egyptian elections are going to be multi-candidate.

- The spread of democratic processes through out the gulf, some countries more democtratic than others.

Just as predicted, and mind you this is a claim that I doubted and constantly refuted, democracy is starting to spread in the middle east. Hell, even the Palestinians had an election.

Correlation isn't necessarily causation. I would contend that the assassination of Rafik Hariri had more to do with what happened in Lebanon than the Iraq war. I would also contend that what happened in Palestine had more to do with the death of Arafat than the Iraq war.

Last I heard, the only declared candidate to run against Mubarak has been jailed. Didn't they start locking up Muslim brotherhood members as well?

I will give you Qaddafi, and one you forgot to mention. The Saudi elections. Although women weren't allowed to vote.

[///M]

True, those were probably the direct causes, but for some reason it took the war in Iraq to get things moving. It's just too big of a coincidence to ignore.

When was the last time you witnessed massive anti-government protests in the middle east? People are publicly speaking out against their leaders for the first time since the Nasser era.

I've been against the invasion of Iraq ever since it started, but I really can't think of an alternative. How else would you have gotten rid of Saddam? You mentioned a revolution, and that failed miserabely, even though it was attempted at the perfect time.

[Firecat]

You're right, except for Iran I think the revolutionary situation is very bleak. But things have changed, there is a lot of anger which needs to be directed somewhere. Either towards their own governments or inevitably towards America. I think the Iraq war just may have moved it towards the latter, but that can change.

Anyway, yes...anti-government activities have been suppressed and are largely underground. In many of these countries though, the people in power are supported by America. Egypt, for example, receives A LOT of aid (both financially and militarily).

Regarding the first gulf war. The Shiites and Kurds did begin to fight and relied on the Americans to help (which they said they would). Well, that help never came through. I still believe a revolution could have worked, as long as it had support. Short of that, I really didn't see much of an urgency to get rid of him anyway.

It begs the question, why Iraq? Want to talk about human rights abuses, look at China....wait, we do business with them. What about Pakistan? Nah, for some reason we are selling them fighter jets. If America was so interested in democracy and freedom, why not use their close relationship with Pakistan and pressure Musharraf to hold elections? The answer of course is we know who would take control of that nuclear nation. Not in the best interest of the world or america, which is why I think this idea of "spreading democracy and freedom" is flawed.

This is an interesting article by Buchanan (a true conservative, not of the neocon persuasion)

http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=6442

[tranceshakeel]

Originally Posted by Firecat

It begs the question, why Iraq? Want to talk about human rights abuses, look at China....wait, we do business with them. What about Pakistan? Nah, for some reason we are selling them fighter jets. If America was so interested in democracy and freedom, why not use their close relationship with Pakistan and pressure Musharraf to hold elections? The answer of course is we know who would take control of that nuclear nation. Not in the best interest of the world or america, which is why I think this idea of "spreading democracy and freedom" is flawed.

This is an interesting article by Buchanan (a true conservative, not of the neocon persuasion)

http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=6442

Well Im a Pakistani and I can tell you that its a totally different story there, people are not opressed under Musharraf but are actually better off.
In Pakistan what happens when someone is elected is only corruption as only those guys get the big posts ie. Ministers etc, that are related in someway with the ruling party !

Im happy to say that there is no corruption under musharraf as there was under the Punjabi GVT (its always punjabi cuz they are somehow the feudal lord)

Believe me I know how many extremist groups had sprung up in Pakistan mainly against us shiites, a lot of bombings on our mosques, but all that has come to a stop, thanks to musharraf !

But you are right whay did they go for iraq, isnt Zimbabwe in a much worse condition, oh yes but its completely useless to go there right, they wont get anything out of it !

[mmap]

Originally Posted by Firecat

It begs the question, why Iraq? Want to talk about human rights abuses, look at China....

No... you don't have to look that far, look at the US! Constntly at the top of Amnestys list of human right violations. The Cuban prison camps braking all international laws of human rights. The allegdged "prison boats" in international waters the countles innocent who have died because of the death penalty... If Bush is so concerned about human rights why not imprison himself and the "rulers" of his own counry. hmmm not likely is it? Hypocracy and double standards... nice when you can get a way with it isn't it?

[Firecat]

Originally Posted by tranceshakeel

Well Im a Pakistani and I can tell you that its a totally different story there, people are not opressed under Musharraf but are actually better off.
In Pakistan what happens when someone is elected is only corruption as only those guys get the big posts ie. Ministers etc, that are related in someway with the ruling party !

Im happy to say that there is no corruption under musharraf as there was under the Punjabi GVT (its always punjabi cuz they are somehow the feudal lord)

Believe me I know how many extremist groups had sprung up in Pakistan mainly against us shiites, a lot of bombings on our mosques, but all that has come to a stop, thanks to musharraf !

But you are right whay did they go for iraq, isnt Zimbabwe in a much worse condition, oh yes but its completely useless to go there right, they wont get anything out of it !

Musharraf has so far saved Pakistan. I take it you didn't like say Benazir or Nawaz Shariff too much
The funny thing is that many people criticize these Muslim countries about womens rights, but Pakistan had a female prime minister...but that's besides the point

Last I checked, the MMA was doing okay. How much support do they have now?

I have first hand knowledge of the corruption of those lower court judges. I would assume that the higher you go up the judicial ladder, the less there is though. As far as politicians and other government officials, well, they are corrupt in any country.

[Firecat]

Originally Posted by mmap

No... you don't have to look that far, look at the US! Constntly at the top of Amnestys list of human right violations. The Cuban prison camps braking all international laws of human rights. The allegdged "prison boats" in international waters the countles innocent who have died because of the death penalty... If Bush is so concerned about human rights why not imprison himself and the "rulers" of his own counry. hmmm not likely is it? Hypocracy and double standards... nice when you can get a way with it isn't it?

Why doesn't America "liberate" itself...?....hmmmm

Honestly, I think those Amnesty lists are more politically motivated than anything else.