| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 53967 | 2005-02-01 03:57:00 | Hooray for Democracy in Iraq! | vinref (6194) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 320266 | 2005-02-02 09:16:00 | Ok - but Iraq was actually a much safer place before the invasion . It was only after the invasion (or news of an imminent invasion) that they started to flood out of Iraq . Safer for who? Those who supported a Government who was run by the party that represented the minority of the population (Sunni Muslim’s) by force, or the people who where the majority of the population (Shiite Muslim’s) but could not get involved politically without running the risk of being visited by the goon squad in the middle of the night, or the Kurds who where gassed by the thousands for much the same reason . It would have been a hell of a lot cheaper, in terms of both money and loss of life, if we had tolerated their political system instead of trying to fix it . I wonder how much it cost the liberate Kuwait . Left to his own devices, he probably would have eventually tried again . (Much like Hitler used Europe's willingness for peace at any cost which eventually lead to WW2 . If Europe had acted sooner and called Hitlers bluff it may not have happened . ) If he couldn't, he could have always provided safe haven for anyone with a grudge from where they could rest up between flying airliners into things . My question is why Iraq? Why not North Korea? Surely they are a far more imminent threat in terms of firepower that may kill millions . Now if we'd gone into North Korea and routed out the terrorists in Afghanistan (if they were ever there in the first place) then perhaps I can see the justification in spending all that money . But Iraq is hardly an investment . . . . unless of course the whole thing was about oil . Why not North Korea? Because China's right next door . While the west's back was turned, China would probibly see a chance to go into Taiwan . The threat to a global exchange of nuclear weapons is probably the main reason I would say . Ahhh OIL . Of course its about oil . Its the stuff that drives the world . Where would we be without it . (Only the future will tell) . But at the moment, its the only stuff that provides CHEAP energy . The cost to global economies if the supply of the stuff is stopped, or even reduced markedly would be catastrophic . Left to there own devices, the Middle East would dissolve into wars between Islamic factions and others wanting to hold power and wipe out Israel (who has nuclear weapons by the way, but you don't get radiation poisoning in paradise so it wouldn't deter people willing to blow themselves up much, but they'd us them anyway . And I'd hate to try to put out the oil well fires that a few nuclear detonations started) . THAT is why the US wants stability there . They wouldn't have given two hoots what Sadam did to his people, as long as he kept his mouth shut and didn't try to stir things up . In simple terms, the US is a society run on the principle of making money . You can't do that when there is a threat to the stability of supply, in the place where you get most of the stuff that drives the world economy . Should they have gone in? I don't think so . They based there plans on the wrong assumptions and wrong intelligence . Should the US butt out of other countries? I would like nothing more than to see the US give the finger to the world and remove itself from world affairs . It could be quite fun watching the UN, the European Union and others trying to sort out the ensuing chaos . But they won't - because there's no money in it . |
craigb (4884) | ||
| 320267 | 2005-02-02 09:20:00 | This is fun . A bit like bear-baiting but without any bears suffering . :thumbs: That'd be like hamster bothering then, eh! :rolleyes: As to this myth that Americans selfishly use soldiers only when there is oil or wealth involved: check these places out - Somalia, Kenya, Lebanon, Bosnia . Lots of dead GIs . A few favours, here and there, are passed around the Security Council from time to time . Keeps things well oiled from certain perspectives . Anyway, no mention of "power, psychopaths, politics" Winnie? The most interesting and remarkable thing about the Iraq election is the large voter turnout . People should have been afraid, or if you believe the limpwristed media, uninterested because they thought it was an American jackup . Instead they voted in their millions . There were reports of Iraqi's saying that getting a "democratic" government was the quickest way to get foriegn troops out of Iraq, who knows though, there's so much misinformation it's very hard to get a grip on it . And where is the civil war promised by the fiery immams? A damp squib . Historically Iraq was relatively secular and peaceful . There is a fair chance that state of affairs can be regained . Not tomorrow but maybe in the next 10 years . Ah yes! Just like good old Iran, now what the heck are they up to at the mo? Speaking of Dictators - anyone see Helen Clarke's speech? Too smug by far . Nah, didn't bother, should I have? BTW, Dictator? More like spook . |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 320268 | 2005-02-02 09:23:00 | " Teddy Roosevelt knew of the planned attack on Pearl Harbour 2 years before it happened." Winston - where does this come from ? The code-cracking ( Magic) did not have that much lead time. Cheers T |
TonyF (246) | ||
| 320269 | 2005-02-02 09:26:00 | Nah, didn't bother, should I have? BTW, Dictator? More like spook. Ah yes, that awful haircut, rotten teeth and sickly lime green blouse that she was wearing in parliament yesterday. Spooky indeed. |
manicminer (4219) | ||
| 320270 | 2005-02-02 09:29:00 | Terry wrote: The US, like any other country, has been and is, driven purely by self interest,... IMHO, yes this is true. The self interest comes in what Bush & Co. believe(d) would have happened if Saddam was left to rule: an unstable Middle East. 'Unstable' meaning that Iraq would dominate / control the flow of oil / bring the Western economy to its knees. Now I am not saying this would happen, but combine this sort of thinking (of GWB) with his religious conviction (shudder), and WHAM BAM they invade Iraq. But you know guys, GWB is crazy, but Saddam is crazier or at least is surrounded by crazier people who did not have a free press and the checks and balances of a democratic gvt to limit his (Saddam's) power. The whole Middle East is a mess but whenever I think things are bad in Iraq, I just reflect on the poor Palestinians. |
Strommer (42) | ||
| 320271 | 2005-02-02 14:26:00 | Winston: Too many Roosevelts... Your Roosevelt was the teddy bear, not the polio survivor. Teddy (Theodore) was president 1901-09. Franklin Delano Roosevelt (president 1933-45) is the feller you needed. |
Laura (43) | ||
| 320272 | 2005-02-02 14:29:00 | Winston: | Laura (43) | ||
| 320273 | 2005-02-02 21:59:00 | Tony - here is one link with a fair summation of the events leading to Pearl Harbour www.geocities.com Laura - oops. I checked but forgot to change Teddy. :o Craigb - I agree with you. Good explanation. Murray - tear me to pieces why don't you! :D Incidentally Iran is a theocracy, not a democracy. Of course Americans are self-interested. Aren't we all? The objection to American foreign policy is that what they claim is altruistic and unselfish, many other people see as empire building. And is driven by the military/industrial complex in the US which needs conflict to survive. I think there is truth in both views. My view of Americans is that they are generous people. They genuinely like to help. Sometimes it is clumsy. Their education system is so insular that most really don't know about the rest of the world. But why they had to become involved in Bosnia/Herzgovinia is beyond me. There are substantial European armies which could have stopped the atrocities. Instead they pussyfooted around while villages were exterminated. Eventually the Yanks got frustrated watching and committed large forces. All of this under the UN flag. Now why should American boys die in Europe (again) when the Europeans were physically capable of doing the necessary police work? Apart from gratitude what did the USA get out of this? No oil. No wealth. No influence. So I have great difficulty in reconciling the cynicism that Americans are purely self-interested, with the reality of their actions around the globe. Certainly they could do more, but hey - so could Australia and we. |
Winston001 (3612) | ||
| 320274 | 2005-02-02 22:54:00 | Thanks Winston. | TonyF (246) | ||
| 320275 | 2005-02-03 00:55:00 | Manicminer's link to the documentary is worth looking at. Curtainaly has made a few things more clear to me. | craigb (4884) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 | |||||