Time to kick Iran

[Flo]

There, I fixed it for you. I don't know if you were trying to be funny, but Rwanda was a rather old fashioned land campaign, mostly, characterized by alot of close in fighting. But I don't suppose you care about facts, just images.

Rwanda is a land locked country, so submarines are a bit out to lunch, don't you think?

DR

Oh, you know, everything's possible now that Switzerland has won the America Cup for the second time in a row

 

[Darth Rotor]

Oh, you know, everything's possible now that Switzerland has won the America Cup for the second time in a row

Well played.

DR

 

[Segnosaur]

If you take into account the number of deaths directly due to violence, and those due to the general unrest, lack of security, lack of commodities, I'm pretty confident that we're unfortunately in the same range.

They may be in the same general range, but based on various estimates I've seen for all the deaths (you can see how I came to those estimates earlier in the thread), the number that were killed by Saddam per year was most likely higher than those currently being killed.

With Saddam gone, at least there is a chance, in the future, for actual peace to break out. If Saddam was in power, chances are the ruling of Iraq would have passed to his sons, who likely would have continued his oppression

Those are not benefits, they're speculations and wishes.

I never claimed that peace (where human rights are respected) was guaranteed. A lot can go wrong. We can still end up with a dictatorship (or a theocracy). But had they not invaded, Iraq was going to remain a dictatoship, likely long after Saddam had died.

Heck, even if the chance of success is 1%, that's still higher than the 0% that Iraq was going to start being respectful of human rights under Saddam.

There are other elements where people's lives have improved... greater freedom of speech, freedom of religion, economic growth, etc.

I'm sorry ? Improved how ? by having bombs detonate in markets almost every day...

Wait a second... earlier in your post, you yourself said that you agreed that people who ignored deaths prior to the invasion were wrong. But here you are, doing the exact same thing.

I do not like the fact that there are terrorist attacks in Iraq. But I also didn't like Saddam's slaughter of Kurds, Shi'ites and Marsh Arabs. By mentioning only the current terrorist activity, you're ignoring those deaths. As I said before, dead is dead... people killed by Saddam deserve to be mourned just as much as those killed by terrorist attacks.

...lacking reliable basic commodities...

Remember, Iraq was already lacking basic commodities as a result of years of sanctions. Those sanctions were deemed necessary to keep Saddam "in check". Those sanctions could have been lifted sooner, but Saddam chose not to cooperate with the U.N., and when Iraq was allowed to sell oil, much of the profits went to support Saddam's government rather than the people.

And freedom of speech, religion, and economic growth for whose Iraqi ? Please ...

Freedom of speech:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/country_profiles/791014.stm

Since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003 there has been a profound transformation in the Iraqi media scene. Instead of a few, tightly-controlled media outlets, Iraqis now have a choice of hundreds of publications and dozens of radio and TV stations.

(Note: Some problems still exist, mostly related to violent activity, but people DO have more free speech now than under Saddam.)

Freedom of Religion:

The Government also severely restricts or bans outright many Shi’a religious practices...The regime systematically has killed senior Shi’a clerics, desecrated Shi’a mosques and holy sites, interfered with Shi’a religious education, and prevented Shi’a adherents from performing their religious rites.

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2002/13996.htm

On Economic growth:

The Iraqi authorities were successful in promoting macroeconomic stability in 2005, despite the extremely difficult security environment...Economic growth in 2005 is estimated at 2.6 percent, following a rebound of almost 50 percent in 2004. (And keep in mind that this is after years of economic stagnation)

http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2005/pr05307.htm

It's unfortunately worse than that: the whole World was lied to about whatever reasons were for the invasion...

Perhaps they were, perhaps they weren't. While I do think the U.S. overemphasized WMD, they were a valid concern. And the U.S. did point out several times prior to the invasion that Saddam was engaging in international terrorism and human rights abuses.

...those who dared caution the US against it were dismissed at best,

There may have been some valid concerns prior to the invasion, but a lot of the voices came from people who used mindless slogans like "No blood for oil". Frankly, people like that deserve to be dismissed.

Look at Matteo... all the mistakes he's made, all the times faults have been exposed in his posts, all the direct challenges he's ignored. Do you really think having people like that on the anti-war side is a benefit? (Not that all the pro-war people were actually thinking rationally, and not that there weren't intelligent people who were against the war; just that the nature of the rhetoric coming from some was an embarasement.)

the planning looks like it was inexistent past the actual invasion, and Rumsfeld's resignation offer might have looked credible had the AbuGraihb abuses been dealt with more seriousness than just blaming and punishing underlings.

I've alrady admitted failures in the post-invasion period, including Abu Garib.

On the question of whether it was a 'moral' act... I believe using military force to stop excessive human rights abuses is valid.

Given that 1) the expected outcome has never clearly been stated, 2) the outcome of any situation is always contingent on the means you put into its realisation, and 3) the lies we've all been fed, I beg to disagree.

Not sure what exactly you mean by 'the expected outcome was never clearly stated'. I thought it was pretty clear... removal of a dictator, dismantalling of his WMD programs, and the installation of a democratic government.

Of course, to me, I'm more interested in whether the actions taken are justified according to what I think are the underlying reasons.

Put it this way, France may have been against the Iraq invasion not because it was a 'bad idea', but because some members of the government were bribed. Does that mean that if you were a citizen of France who opposed the invasion that you were automatically wrong just because your government lied to you about why it opposed the invasion?

On the question about whether it will impove the world in the long run... for that, I don't think anyone really has the answer (not even myself), and they won't for at least a decade when we see what the long term implications for Iraq and the middle east are.

I'm a pessimist in those matters.

Fine, there are reasons to be pessimistic. Heck, I've also pointed out problems with the way the invasion was handled, both before and after. Just don't let your pessimism give you a bias that gives you a distorted view of what's happening.

(I've already seen some of that from you... when, for example, you were told there were more freedoms, and your comment was basically "what freedoms?")

 

[Ion]

By who?
Putin?
Shinzo Abe?
Kofi Annan?
...

Kofi Annan and U.N..

 

[Ion]

I know this take on U.N.:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasPKilgannon/2006/05/18/the_un_fails_again

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTBjMjRhMjY2ZTVlODkyYmNkY2U1YzdlYWQwYjg5NTY=

http://www.ccd21.org/news/ditching_dictators.htm

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110007554

The solution is to improve U.N..

Unilateral attack by Bush's U.S. is Fascism, worse than U.N. (like worse than Geneva Convention, worse than U.N. inspections af WMDs in Iraq, worse than U.N.'s human rights including sexual human rights, and more).

The Canadian question when taking a citizenship test is where Canada's allegiance lies first:

.) U.N.?

or

.) U.S.?

The correct answer expected by the Canadian judges of citizenship is:

U.N..

I agree.

Bush and his U.S. are Capitalist thugs.
Two days ago, Bush wanted to place the Iranian Revolutionary army on the terrorist list because it destabilizes the Middle East.
Yeah, right...
Bush the Fascist destabilizator of the Middle East who invades it with U.S. Capitalism, lectures others about destabilizing the Middle East...

 

[dudalb]

I guess you mean Give the UN absolute power in the world.
No way,baby,no way.

 

[Ion]

I guess you mean Give the UN absolute power in the world.
...

Yes.

That's what I mean.

No more rogue unilateral states like U.S., Hitler's Germany, U.S.S.R., Iraq, Iran, etc..

 

[dudalb]

Yes.

That's what I mean.

No more rogue unilateral states like U.S., Hitler's Germany, U.S.S.R., etc..

So you want to abolish all governments and put a Organization That is,BTW,responsible to on one but itself in total control of the world.
If so,you are a fool.

 

[Ion]

Less idiotic than you starting the war in Iraq.

 

[dudalb]

I see you talk about Americans as if they were a foreign people,but you live in San Diego.
If you hate the US So much,why the hell do you stay here?

 

[Ziggurat]

The Canadian question when taking a citizenship test is where Canada's allegiance lies first:

.) U.N.?

or

.) U.S.?

The correct answer expected by the Canadian judges of citizenship is:

U.N..

I agree.

Got a source for this?

 

[Matteo Martini]

Yes, I recognized that the statement came from the Iraqi body count web site. However, you quoted that web site (in support of your argument), and you used the sentiment (that the death count 'is low') as the basis for your argument that more than 100,000 died.

So, if you quote a web site, and use that quote to support claims you made, it natural to assume that you actually believe what was written, even if you were not the original author of those words.

No, no, you did not get it at first, it is very clear.
This is why youy wrote:
The fact that it "seems" low to you [ Matteo Martini ] doesn't necessarily mean that it is low.
[] parenthesis are mine.

Now you get it.

Anyway, do we agree, now, that, even the site www.iraqbodycount recognizes that the number of civilian deaths is probably over 100000?

Please, do not make me re-write everything from the start.

Edited to add:
You know Mateo, you almost remind me of a 9/11 conspricy believer. They tend to take small comments (like Silverstein's "Pull it") out of context and assign meaning to it which does not belong. You, on the other hand, like to take comments (like the death rate "may" be higher) and use it to support any sort of claims.

My name is Matteo
Matteo
Not Mateo
It is clearly written.
I am Italian, not Spanish!!
Porca puttana vacca, possibile che nessuno riesce a scrivere il mio nome bene, su questo cazzo di sito!!??

 

[Matteo Martini]

There, I fixed it for you. I don't know if you were trying to be funny, but Rwanda was a rather old fashioned land campaign, mostly, characterized by alot of close in fighting. But I don't suppose you care about facts, just images.

Rwanda is a land locked country, so submarines are a bit out to lunch, don't you think?

DR

Yes, and the military weak America, has no air forces to perform attacks in a land locked country.
Yawn..

 

[Matteo Martini]

Kofi Annan and U.N..

How well did Kofi Annan contain Iran ( other than Iraq, North Korea, .. ) while he was in office?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Yes, and the military weak America, has no air forces to perform attacks in a land locked country.
Yawn..

What, you wanted the US to bomb Rwandans to stop the war? Bombing would not have stopped that war, sorry, you really are out to lunch.

Peace enforcement is a Land Operation, not an air raid. It takes a logistics stream to sustain a land force to enforce a peace, a mission that is much harder than peacekeeping, and waaaaaaaay harder than humanitarian aid. You will note that the peacekeepers in place were ineffective in keeping the fragile peace.

Stop with this foolishness, Matteo, you aren't thinking clearly.

DR

 

[Ion]

How well did Kofi Annan contain Iran ( other than Iraq, North Korea, .. ) while he was in office?

He contained them through I.A.E.A..

When that's not good enough, then U.N. needs improvement.

But the world doesn't need rogue U.S. to mingle in there and unilaterally break havoc.

U.S. is a failure, a Fascist country.

 

[Ion]

I see you talk about Americans as if they were a foreign people,but you live in San Diego.
If you hate the US So much,why the hell do you stay here?

To conquer and change U.S..

Think 1800 when Europeans were conquering natives.

 

[Ion]

Got a source for this?

Me.

That's how I was coached by a Canadian judge when I took the Canadian citizenship.

 

[Ziggurat]

He contained them through I.A.E.A..

You have GOT to be kidding me. Iran has been flouting IAEA rules for years now, and has faced NO real consequences from the UN as a result of that. What has the IAEA done to ensure that Iran's nuclear program cannot be used for military purposes? Oh, that's right: nothing. Rules are meaningless if they can't be enforced, and the IAEA is incapable of enforcing its rules on Iran.

Hell, the IAEA has never uncovered a cladestine military nuclear weapons program in its entire history. And it's not because such programs haven't existed.

 

[Ziggurat]

Me.

That's how I was coached by a Canadian judge when I took the Canadian citizenship.

And was that actually on the test? Or was that just this one judge passing off his personal political opinions on you? And frankly, I don't find you a very credible source.