The Invasion of Iraq: Dollar vs Euro

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

Quote

I'm not going to restate my points you continue to ignore. It would have been people like you pointing fingers "why didn't anyone do something to stop SH" after it was too late.

I haven’t ignored them I have addressed them as total propaganda bullshit, if you had a single ounce of motivation to actually look up what you are saying you would realise this.

Saddam was a threat to no one outside of Iraq, this is a fact supported by all intelligence agencies and academic specialists across the entire world and if you would turn off your propaganda fox news box you wouldn't even be arguing this ridiculous point

Quote

I can no longer debate with someone who emotionally ignores logic.

How is telling you what you have said is complete bullshit "emotionally ignoring logic", do some research and you would realise how little you know about this subject.

Quote

Invading Iraq was a mistake? If so, then maybe not because it was the wrong thing to do, but perhaps because modern American society has lost the stomach for doing the right thing

What is it you don't understand about supreme international crime of aggression put forth by all international laws?

Quote

When will be the next threat that we won't defend ourselves against? I'm afraid we only have the will to unite after innocents die. Case in point, Al Qaeda was a growing threat we all pretty much ignored and are now all united against. Too bad it took them hitting us hard to create that unity in us. Looks like that's what it'll take again.

3000 dead people is NOTHING you wiped out more civilians in initial attacks on Afghanistan, and Iraq is reaching half a million dead people directly because of your actions.

The US kill more people every year across the globe because of its actions than 3000 people.

[ErricoMalatesta 0]

Quote

Yet again for all your rhetoric, you present no evidence that the elections were unfair.

Ok lets think about it

The US and the UK continuously fought democracy, and still are, every step of the way in Iraq. They only held elections after mass non-violent protest by the Iraqi people.

Well what is one measurement we can use for judging democracy and freedom? I guess you could say listening to the will of the people.

According to a British Ministry of Defence survey 84% of Iraqis want withdrawal of UK and US troops, 1% thought that the occupying forces improved security.

So we better ignore that...

What else....

How about the reestablishing of relations with Iran which would no doubt happen under a sovereign Iraq and which was already happening under Saddam. Well apart from a sovereign and democratic Iraq, patching up Iran-Iraq relations is the last thing the US want.

So how does a real democratic Iraq look VS a US/UK democratic Iraq.

Well a sovereign Iraq would be Shiite dominated, there would be no occupying foreign forces, it would be an independent Arab nation that controls most of the worlds major energy resource, no foreign military bases...

These are obviously things Washington don’t want.

The elections weren’t "unfair" or "fraudulent" in terms of the winning candidate or the process of voting, they simply don't matter.

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

.... The US stated aim was to install a democratic government in Iraq and they did have democratic elections in Iraq, .....

Jesus. I really can't believe that in our educated and enlighted generation there still are individuals falling for such a BS. After all those years - woah

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[billvon 3,118]

>Invading Iraq was a mistake? If so, then maybe not because it was
>the wrong thing to do, but perhaps because modern American society has
>lost the stomach for doing the right thing . . .

I would put it to you that most americans are discovering they have no stomach for doing the wrong thing. Killing tens of thousands of civilians is, without question, the wrong thing to do. Eliminating an enemy of both Iran and Bin Laden is probably the wrong thing to do in terms of our security. Allowing a safe haven to exist in Pakistan for Bin Laden is probably the wrong thing to do.

Do enough wrong things and you almost guarantee another 9/11.

>When will be the next threat that we won't defend ourselves against?
>I'm afraid we only have the will to unite after innocents die. Case in point,
>Al Qaeda was a growing threat we all pretty much ignored and are now all
> united against.

An excellent point. Had we continued our campaign against Al Qaeda, instead of abandoning it to invade Iraq (a former enemy of Bin Laden) we might now be free of that threat. Unfortunately, we have turned Iraq into a terrorist haven, one that represents a real threat to our security - and one that Al Qaeda now uses as a training ground.

>Too bad it took them hitting us hard to create that unity in us.

It didn't just create that unity in us; the whole world was behind us for a short time. Let's hope that if that happens again we don't squander that opportunity as we did after 9/11.

[philh 0]

"How fair do you think it would be if, say, Iran set out the parameters for elections in the UK, and armed Iranian troops were standing around in the streets of London during the elections? I forgot to add that the Iranians were an uninvited invading force. "

Kallend, your are cherry picking your data, or in this case , there is no actual data , just hypotheitcal scenario. The scenario you described can be equally apllied to the democractic elections in Gernmany after WWII, there foreign power were uninvited but invaded and imposed democracy instead of dictatorship. Were you opposed to that?

"They only held elections after mass non-violent protest by the Iraqi people. "
The US said they were going to hold elections and they did, there were certainly protest over timing, but that does not prove intent. Im not sure your analysis is therefore correct.

"Well what is one measurement we can use for judging democracy and freedom? I guess you could say listening to the will of the people. "

Im afraid your view of democracy is utopian. I wish democracy did work this way but it doesnt. Its a much more imperfect system. The way democracy actaully works is a government is elected by the people and it makes its own decisions. If its decisions as a whole after its term its up are considered worse than those of its alternatives it will be replaced by those alternatives. Democracy (in a practical term) does not mean the will of the poeple is always executed. For example, most people in the UK opposed the war in IRAQ(me included) but they mostly agreed the elections after the war were fair( or do you think the US forced us all to vote Labour) and they elected a government that was in favour of the war. This is of course a failure of democracy but this is the nature of the beast. It is not a perfect system. I wish it would work better, but I can admit the reality that it doesnt.

Democracies work to varying degrees , none are perfect and some are worse than others. The Iraqi democracy is not working at all. The nation is in a nightmare state, the deicsion to invade was a distatorously wrong one, Iraqi democracy is not working , but none of that means there was no democracy.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

"How fair do you think it would be if, say, Iran set out the parameters for elections in the UK, and armed Iranian troops were standing around in the streets of London during the elections? I forgot to add that the Iranians were an uninvited invading force. "

Kallend, your are cherry picking your data, or in this case , there is no actual data , just hypotheitcal scenario. The scenario you described can be equally apllied to the democractic elections in Gernmany after WWII, there foreign power were uninvited but invaded and imposed democracy instead of dictatorship. Were you opposed to that?

.

If I recall correctly, Germany started that war, which is an implied invitation. Iraq didn't declare war on the UK or US. The rationale for our invasion turned out to be fabricated. We are there illegitimately.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Kallend, your are cherry picking your data, or in this case , there is no actual data , just hypotheitcal scenario. The scenario you described can be equally apllied to the democractic elections in Gernmany after WWII, there foreign power were uninvited but invaded and imposed democracy instead of dictatorship. Were you opposed to that?

Yeah. You were one... maybe two years old. I'm sure you remember it well.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

If I recall correctly, Germany started that war, which is an implied invitation. Iraq didn't declare war on the UK or US. The rationale for our invasion turned out to be fabricated. We are there illegitimately.

You'd better look over your shoulder so you don't trip.

[philh 0]

"Germany started that war, which is an implied invitation. Iraq didn't declare war on the UK or US. The rationale for our invasion turned out to be fabricated. We are there illegitimately."

I agree with your statment 100% but that has nothing to do with wether there was a democractic process in the aftermath. i think I have made that clear time and time again in my posts. My objective is that those of us who are against the war need to focus are criticisms where they are legitiumate ie Iraq had no connection to AQ, posed no threat and had no WMD's, not where they are illegitanme slagging off attempts at democracy otherwise we provide easy fodder for the neo cons and their allies.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

"Germany started that war, which is an implied invitation. Iraq didn't declare war on the UK or US. The rationale for our invasion turned out to be fabricated. We are there illegitimately."

I agree with your statment 100% but that has nothing to do with wether there was a democractic process in the aftermath. i think I have made that clear time and time again in my posts. My objective is that those of us who are against the war need to focus are criticisms where they are legitiumate ie Iraq had no connection to AQ, posed no threat and had no WMD's, not where they are illegitanme slagging off attempts at democracy otherwise we provide easy fodder for the neo cons and their allies.

So I submit that elections held under the guns of an invading army of aggression are ipso facto not fair and free.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[philh 0]

Thats an empeirical question, show me the evidence by an independent body that the elections in iraq were rigged by the invading army and in this case Ill agree with you, without it your just assuming stuff without evidence.

just becuase the invasion was wrong (and I think there's no doubt about that ) doesnt mean everything done subsequent is. Do you agree that the elctions in the former Yugoslavia were all illegitmate as well?

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Thats an empeirical question, show me the evidence by an independent body that the elections in iraq were rigged by the invading army and in this case Ill agree with you,

Don't get your hopes up.

Quote

without it your just assuming stuff without evidence.

I've noticed the same thing... on more than one occassion.

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Thats an empeirical question, show me the evidence by an independent body that the elections in iraq were rigged by the invading army and in this case Ill agree with you, without it your just assuming stuff without evidence.

just becuase the invasion was wrong (and I think there's no doubt about that ) doesnt mean everything done subsequent is. Do you agree that the elctions in the former Yugoslavia were all illegitmate as well?

I didn't claim that they were rigged, I claim that elections held under the duress of the highly visible presence of a foreign occupying army can never be free or fair.

Was Honecker elected freely and fairly in E. Germany? Jaruzelski in Poland? Husak in Czechoslovakia? Funny how they were kicked out so quickly once the Soviet troops were gone.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.