Originally posted by junglejake
This...assumes the Iraqis are less human then we, in "1st world" nations are. Look at the American population. We have people living here from every nation in the world. We also have every ideology in the world, and are creating new religions daily. America has far better potential for having the most violent uprising the world has ever seen, neighbor killing neighbor because to some degree we all disagree with eachother.

Typically, however, we do not. Not because we have a dictatorial government, not because we have a petty despot who likes to torture, but because we are free we don't feel the need for violence.

Of course there are exceptions. Look at the abortion debate, we've got people screaming baby killer while murdering doctors, and we have people screaming it's the woman's choice as they bash the brain in of someone who feels differently.

Those people are the exception, not the norm. I've become, lately, very anti-abortion, but my mom is extreamly pro-choice. Yet I have yet to take a bat to her head. We talk, discusss, and agree to disagree.

So my biggest problem with this belief that Iraqis need someone torturing and terrifying them just seems bigoted to me. We can have freedoms, but the Iraqis aren't good enough, they're less human, and will react violently to freedom. Hey, so did we when we first got it, look at the whiskey rebellion.

The other arguement is that Islam won't allow freedom. Well, if that's the case, why aren't all the muslims here in america killing everyone since they don't have a heavy hand killing their children when they do wrong?

No, the Iraqis are just as human as we are, and are just as capable of having peaceful democracy as we are. It's something they've never experienced before, and therefor don't know what it entails yet, but they will. It took our nation almost 70 years for the major violent rebellions to stop. Did you know that in congress in the 1800s one entire party in the senate tracked down a senator they disagreed with and started clubbing him? Now, the democratic party has gone so far as to elect a former member of the KKK and put him in a position of power!

So in short, it took America a long while to get used to their freedoms, why should it only take the Iraqis a year, when they lived in a far worse dictatorship then we had before we cast off England's yolk.

Iraqis will never adopt a democracy. The democracy currently being promoted is already a dictatorship as it is not what the poeple want. This is a BS democracy run by a family of Turkish.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Saddam was a good man.
Never did anything wrong worth mentioning in world opinion.
He didn't invade Kuwait, Kuwait invited him.
He never had WMD, the world and the UN made those stories, reports, and documentations up, even before and after the 1st Gulf War.
Those mass graves steadily being found and dug up today were not from his doing.
The Kurds are liars.
The Shi'ites are liars.
The Sunni are lairs.
He treated everyone with kindness and mercy.
The sanctions were illegial.
He was really a swell guy and should be put back into his position of authority.
The US and Coalition should repay all the war damage caused within 'his' country.
Reparations should be payed.

Saddam is the man and is the man that Iraq needs back today.



seekerof

Oh, well my friend: why don't you let Saddam speak for himself? How come Saddam is kept in silence? Isn't it too easy to shut the people mouth up and then tell what you like??

I would love to hear what Saddam and his top ranking generals have to say!

Originally posted by Ezekiel

Originally posted by RedOctober90
Simple, U.S. taxpayers that support the war can pay for it if they like. I am tired of paying for the benefit of people of foreign lands... I need to ensure my money goes to the people of my own motherland first. And what money is left over, then can go over to a foreign nation probably.

Dont you think that this war in Iraq - that is taking all of your tax money, will benefit you and all the other Americans in the long run?

Think of the money saved when the Iraq situation is finally settled down.

Oil will be cheaper anyway.

[Edited on 12-5-2004 by Ezekiel]

Not only, we'll be able to chose to whom we want to sell (our) oil, and therefore become more powerful.

Good post Hoppinmad1. Brute force is the only thing some people understand. Look at some of our school systems. Filled with rotten kids and the only way you can control them is with an iron fist. Plus how much of the problems were Uday and Qusay? It seems they were the evil ones in the bunch and that Saddam was just an iron fist ruler. But as is the problem with many parents he would let his kids get away with everything.

Saddam was, as we all hear daily, a brutal dictator. No one should doubt this. But he was the kind of brutal dictator which (funnily enough) served the US interests well. His Iraq was the only secular country in the middle-east, and his iron fist kept the terrorists out. Oddly, we seem to have given all the wrong reasons for invading Iraq. WMD's? Nope. Terrorists? Nope.

But now, after the invasion, Saddam is gone, which would under any circumstances be a good thing- but Iraq is now a spawning ground for terror, and the WMD's that the UN kept such a tight watch on are dispersed to parts unknown following the looting.

Bush couldn't even use a militarily castrated dictator in America's best interest, one of the defining hallmarks of US presidents throughout history. But, luckily for the world, he could damn well use the suffering of American troops and Iraqi civilians for his own profit and to appease his cabal of neocons.

-koji K.

[edit on 29-8-2004 by koji_K]

I totally agree, looking back I understand why Saddam would rule veryone so harshly, cos all those religious rubbish that goes on.

The only thing religion has provided is a way to segregate the community into classes.