Trooth

Hussein was a dictator, but we have established he was not a threat to his neighbours. Colin Powell seems to have been right in 2001, wrong in 2002 and right again in 2004. Ask Kaye. He has learnt not to shoot his mouth off nad has back tracked right back to "they should have registered that vat".

Iraq was a pretty much secular nation under Hussein. If you do believe it was dangerous, i would argue it had to do with a dictator and not religion. Saddam paid lip service to Islam and was hated by Bin Laden. Hussein had a Christian in his cabinet, the long time Foreign Minister in Tariq Aziz! This was not an Islamic fundamentalist nation.

Lets us not confuse Saddam with a good muslim.

Trooth

It isn't for any other nation to determine their government other than the Iraqi nation. This includes any form of condition you might want to put on their choices. Because if you do that, the people will not support it and the government will either fail into anarchy or resaort to death to stay in power. Neither of which are an improvement over Saddam. And surely war, killing tens of thousands of Iraqis has to lead to an improvement or it really wasn't worth doing.

If you wish to repeat this then into Iran, then i am afraid this is just morally negligent.

Praxus

So your saying it's not alright for the United States to institute a Government that protects their liberty, but it is all right for the Iraqi majority to impose a theocratic tyranical regime on the Iraqis that want a free Government?

But you want to allow them to create an immoral mass murdering theocratic regime. You think that is an improvement over Saddam!?

Trooth

Hmm, so you want a minority democracy. Good luck to you making that one work at the polls. Who are you going to give two votes to?

Very hyperbolic. You seem to have tied the words theocracy and mass murdering together. I take it you cannot for the life of you think of any secular democracies that have been mass murderers?

I am NOT saying that they SHOULD be a theocracy. I am saying that they should choose their own form of government. If they choose a theocracy so be it. You won't make anything stick that the poeple don't want anyway, unless the US is going to stay in Iran and ensure the democractic minority hold power for the next 50/100/500 years.

ZFBoxcar

if they arent a democracy who is "the people" that is choosing the form of government? Its easy to talk about self-determination, but being the same race does not make it okay to oppress people. Unless Iraq becomes a democracy the people are not choosing their fate, whoever has the guns are choosing.

Praxus

I never suggesting that the United States or any potential Government we should set up would be a Democracy.

"The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind. "

"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him. "
-Thomas Jefferson

You should not be asking "I take it you cannot for the life of you think of any secular democracies that have been massmurders?"

If a "secular democracy" has ever commited mass murder is not even close to the point at hand.

You should be asking "Has there ever been a theocracy that has not commited mass murder".

When a Government can claim power by God they provide themselves with the "moral" sanction for their own actions. Since Islam is not based on the idea of Individual Rights and Republicanism, any Government based on it's law can not by it's very nature be a just and moral Government.

You don't understand, you are continuely contradicting yourself.

You say the United States does not have a right to "impose" our system of Government on them, but the majority of Iraqis have a right to create a Dictatorship or Theocracy and impose it on the rest of the Iraqis?

The only reason you have to justify your position is that "well it won't last because the majority will win anyways".

Also one last note, you claim that the Majority in all cases is to prevail. How can you claim this to be true, just look at Japan, nearly every Japanese person was opposed to a Constitution unilaterally drafted by MacCarther. But somehow it magicly survived even to this day and people today pasionatly support it,

Confed999

If they can make pesticides they can make chemical weapons. With about 10 minutes research, here on the web, you can make your own. The chemicals are easy and common, the delivery system is what counts.
So they accidentaly burried well maintained chemical delivery shells and forgot to disclose them? They were accidentaly producing illegal rockets and forgot to disclose them? They were accidentaly etc... etc... etc... Sorry Trooth, they knew what they were doing. I would also like to see the quote from a high level weapon inspector that says "there was no intent in ANY material breach".
True, but I don't want you taking responsibility for any of my friends/family lost, life or deeds or death, regardless of the situation. They chose their path, it was their life to give, and we can console ourselves with the full knowledge that they went out trying to help. Granted it's little consolation, but it's unlike passing in an accident or from disease, what can one say to the 5 year old about that? What can one say to the 25 year old about that? There is allways pain with death, there's no way around it, and no way to stop it, when death comes for me I pray I pass helping. I wish you didn't have to bleed, I bet the person you're bleeding for wishes the same. May peace find your heart.
They sold the rights by their own law, then they changed the law years later. Sorry if they made a bad deal but that's the way it goes.
Who can they not trade with? What country's goods are being blocked?
Or... looking at Pakistan too.

__________________
No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It’s the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

Officer of Engineers

I may not know what I was doing when I was a LT and maybe even a Capt but I knew the responsibilities as a Maj and certainly as a LCol.

It was not my fault but it was my responsibility. It took me years/decade to come to terms with that.

That little girl is all grown up and graduated with honours and is on the Dean's List. She no longer blames me but I was the crutch she held on for so many years. You want to see a grown man cry in public? She took me out to dinner and forgave me.

My wife thought I was having an affair until she remembered that she was the daughter of the friend I lost.

__________________
Chimo

Ray

Praxus,

International equations are not so simple as you view. It is very complex.

If Iran also becomes Iraq, then who will reconstruct them? Who will finance the economy and govt building of all the Moslems nations that you will be demolishing, apart from adding to terrorist who will require military to subdue and control?

Send me you e mail and I will send you some articles so that you are a rounded view and not the view that is moulded by Rupert Murdoch and Fox News. Obviously, the articles are not very charitable but they are by educated people including American and Candadian academics! I could have posted them as a thread, but I don't wish to hurt the sensibilities of people.

Bush is a benign jingoist. He thinks only of America and none else. And quite rightly so from the US point of view. Have you noticed how is view is mellowed from the days of 9/11? The gung ho rhetoric has been eplaced with realism of the circumstances. NO more smoking folks out and Bring them on pizzazz! I am sure you will agree that none on this Board has more insight of US requirements than President Bush. At least that is what I would like to believe.

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Praxus

I am by no means a fan of President Bush, in fact quite the oposite. He has manged to expand the welfare state faster then Clinton.

Bush doesn't know what he is doing, he doesn't have a clear message to send to the world. Just self-contradicting nonsense. On top of this instead of making it abundently clear that we are fighting a war of self-defense and not a war of love, he does the opposite. Then he speaks about relentless pursuit of our enemy but instead he negotiates with these people and in the end it makes us look week and solves nothing. Him and people like him for the last 20 years have made this country into a self-made paper tiger to be feared by no one.

They will rebuild their own nation, we should only help with establishing a military and police force and other essentials of a free Government. They need a free-market economy (laissiez faire) and they will prosper because of it.

That's the equivilent of saying let's not attack Japan directly we will just destroy their Island bases, because if we attacked Japan it would only create more Kamikazi's and volunteers to fight us.

I am not suggesting firebombing Iran, just so you know.

Militant Islam is our Enemy just like Nazism and Fascism was during World War 2 and Communism during the Cold War.


E-mail ------> praxus@comcast.net

Ray

Praxus,

All that about self building a nation is bull ****. Are you aware that while on the surface the things are good in these country, the rmaindr live in abject povwrty and illiteracy that you will Never dream about?

Don't apply your standards with these or even my country. You don't realise the comfort and security you have! Even you poor who live in Shelters in the US are far better off. They have clothes on their back!

I am nearly becoming a fan of Bush since I am wary of people like Kerry who waver. Not that it matter since I don't vote for the US Presidential elections!

Praxus

I believe the best way to get them out of poverty is pure unadulterated laissiez faire capitalism. That was my point, throwing a bunch of welfare at them isn't going to help them in the long run.

Bush is far better then Kerry and Bush is bad. I wouldn't want to live any other country in Europe and Canada where the leaders are ten times worst then Kerry.

Trooth

I shall dig it out. The ones i saw were in a TV programme, where even Kaye was backing down. But i am sure they have been reported elsewhere, i will have to search.

Regarding the missiles shells etc. This is all part of the problem. We went to war because Iraq was going to launch a chemical attack on his enighbours in 45 mminutes. It was a direct threat to the west. Now we are talking about some missles whose extra range was indicated in test results, rather than design spec, test results that they did declare. Then there were the aluminium tubes that Kaye was convinced where for enriching Uranium. Until he got closer and found tehy were not. Then there was the mobile bio labs. Abosulutely they were bio weapon labs. Blair and Bush said so. Oh, no, wait. Bit more investigation, turns out they were not. Oops.

From my point of view, the point is not if Iraq were in breach. The debate as over the imminent threat, over what Colin Powell (a man i have respect for) told the UN. Not the watering down and shifting goalposts that has taken place in the last 18 months.
Tthe US and for all i know the UK are in breach of chemical weapons disposal committments in various treaties. The point is that the language changed from "end of the world" to "iminient threat" to "no WMD, but WMD programmes", to "material breach" to "well, ok, a few vats, some viles and some nice shiny shells". Now it is clearly being left. It wouldn't surprise me if the US/UK etc never released an official report into WMD in Iraq - the final summing up, until Bush and Blair are out of office (so the earliest could be May 05), because to publish any report would re-awaken the debate.

If my government wants to go to war i want it to tell me why. I don't want it to give me a reason it thinks i will agree with. I want it to tell me why it is going to war. If it wants to go to war because the nice man from BP has a fantastic holiday villa in the Algarve and he has promised to put Ewan through Oxford, i want to know it. If it wants to go to war to protect UK interests, citizens etc. I want to know the reason. All i know from the Iraq war is ever decreasing circles of spin.

But i have, in somewhat i tradition, spun myself off at a tangent.

Well a cynic would say that the reconstruction contracts where not being selected by the Iraqi's. I have no problem with the US selecting the contractors for the ones where it is footing the bill. But it isn't footing the bill for all of the work.

Ray

{Praxus,

Did you get my articles thorugh e mail? Do confirm since my connection if as good as lousy. 54 minutes I spent to sent it and then they told me errors.

Trooth

Regarding the democracy / theocracy debate.

I am not saying that Iraq should have a thoecracy. I belivee they should have a democratic system. But i believe that Iraqis should determine the nature of that democracy and have free and fair elections. That means that if a Shia cleric wants to stand for election, he should be able to and if where to win, so be it. No one should be excluded from participation.

If the Iraqi's want to have a constitution based on Islamic law. So be it.

Same goes for Iran.

And i am being pragmatic. There is a power vacuum in Iraq. Anything that fills that vacuum that is not supported by the people will only stay in power by use of the gun. This is not the UK, the US etc. This is not a country that is in a steady state condition. It is in turmoil and it would be folly to ignore that. Therefore i do not believe you can take an imposition approach.

I am not convinced by the comparison with Japan. A direct military act of war against the Japanese was perpetrated by Japan. Its people new that the Pearl Harbour attack was a pre-meditated act of war on behalf of Japan. Everything that followed could be attributed to that incident that the Japanese government crowed so majestically about at the time. When, years later, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed and hundreds of thousands of innocents were dead on mainland Japan the people could see the lineage. I am not convinced that you can equate the experience and knowledge of the Japenese people of the 40s with that of the Iraqi's of the noughties.