"But it's for their own good" - governing people against the

[RedCeltic]

Governing others against their will: Proponents of the war with Iraq say that by deposing of Saddam Hussein, the country can be liberated and that the Iraqi people will welcome their freedom. The anti-war camp, led by France, argues against this belief. In France's Le Monde Diplomatique, Ignacio Ramonet asserts that the pretext "invoked by Washington to establish a democracy in Iraq cannot legally justify the aggression." The editor quotes 17th century lawyer Grotius saying, "'To want to govern the other against their will,
under pretext that it is good for them', constitutes the most frequent argument for 'unfair wars'."

[englandsgay]

lol I read the title and thought it was an anti-communist thread.

[RedCeltic]

No, this is in response to the idiotic notion that we must murder Iraqi people in order to save them.

[Social Democrat]

I agree with RC.
The Iraqi people will be no happier or more free under forced US rule. After this unjust war is over, the Iraqi people should be able to choose their government. Of course, this will not happen, and a US freindly leader will be installed by occupying US forces.

[Just Joe]

better an Arab dictator, than an American one. I'm sure thats how many Iraqis see it.

todays Suicide attack; a chilling look into the future for US Soldiers in the middle east.

[RedCeltic]

Yes and now Syria is steping up to the US.... people suspect that if Syria joins in, or is forced to by the US trying to stop it's weapons trade with Iraq.... the entire Arab world will rise up.

This could very well be the spark that started WWIII

[Liberty Lover]

No, this is in response to the idiotic notion that we must murder Iraqi people in order to save them.


But let me guess...It was alright to kill Cubans in order to save them from Batista?

Sometimes it is necessary to kill a few inorder to save a lot more.

The Iraqi people will be no happier or more free under forced US rule.

So the Iraqi people won't be happier without the penalty of death for criticising the regime? The Shiite's and Kurds (80% of Iraqi pop.) won't be happier without Saddam gassing them and draining their water supplies?

Of course, this will not happen, and a US freindly leader will be installed by occupying US forces.

Incorrect. The US will be installing an interim American administration lead by Gen. Tommy Franks, similar to post WWII Germany and Japan, as a preperation for democracy.

(Edited by Liberty Lover at 10:28 pm on Mar. 29, 2003)

[Just Joe]

But let me guess...It was alright to kill Cubans in order to save them from Batista?

that was a national uprising not a foreign invasion. can't blame you for trying though.

So the Iraqi people won't be happier without the penalty of death for criticising the regime? The Shiite's and Kurds (80% of Iraqi pop.) won't be happier without Saddam gassing them and draining their water supplies?

so youre saying Saddam gases and drains the water supplies of 80% of his people?

Incorrect. The US will be installing an interim American administration lead by Gen. Tommy Franks, similar to post WWII Germany and Japan, as a preperation for democracy.

a US dictator will rule over a foreign land for maybe more than a year so the US can search the land looking for a puppet who can obey there every command. maybe even an oilman like Karzai was. its just which member of the Bush administrations business interests will come first. Cheney got the last one. Maybe its Rumsfelds turn this time?

[Zombie]

Incorrect. The US will be installing an interim American administration lead by Gen. Tommy Franks, similar to post WWII Germany and Japan, as a preperation for democracy
dumbass its not Franks, it's Gen. John Abizeid who's gonna lead the interim gov.. lol u gotta be more up to date lad.

Sometimes it is necessary to kill a few inorder to save a lot more.
Just like the unjustified bombings of hiroshima or nagasaki... AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T HAPPEN ON YOUR LAND, YOU JUST DONT GIVE A FUCK DO YOU.

So the Iraqi people won't be happier without the penalty of death for criticising the regime? The Shiite's and Kurds (80% of Iraqi pop.) won't be happier without Saddam gassing them and draining their water supplies
12 years of US bombing and sanctions. Remember that.

[Social Democrat]

Quote: from Liberty Lover on 2:26 pm on Mar. 29, 2003
No, this is in response to the idiotic notion that we must murder Iraqi people in order to save them.


But let me guess...It was alright to kill Cubans in order to save them from Batista?

Sometimes it is necessary to kill a few inorder to save a lot more.

The Iraqi people will be no happier or more free under forced US rule.

So the Iraqi people won't be happier without the penalty of death for criticising the regime? The Shiite's and Kurds (80% of Iraqi pop.) won't be happier without Saddam gassing them and draining their water supplies?

Of course, this will not happen, and a US freindly leader will be installed by occupying US forces.

Incorrect. The US will be installing an interim American administration lead by Gen. Tommy Franks, similar to post WWII Germany and Japan, as a preperation for democracy.

(Edited by Liberty Lover at 10:28 pm on Mar. 29, 2003)


Do you really believe that the US has such benevolent intentions for Iraq? Yes, Iraq may become a "democracy" but it will be a US friendly one, you can be sure of that.
Various reconstruction duties will be contracted out to numerous American corporations that have been freindly to the GOP.
All of Dubya's freinds will get filthy rich off of a war that didn't need to happen. They will then support the GOP more, giving them funding for the 2004 elections.

Gulf War I - War for Oil
Gulf War II - War for Votes

[Liberty Lover]

dumbass its not Franks, it's Gen. John Abizeid who's gonna lead the interim gov.. lol u gotta be more up to date lad.

Have you got a link?

Just like the unjustified bombings of hiroshima or nagasaki

*sigh*

Many more people would have died in a conventional invasion of the Japanese mainland than the 250, 000 or so that were killed in and as a consequence of the bombing of Hiroshima ans Nagasaki. I am bassing this on the some 200, 000 deaths during the invasion of the small islands of Okinawa and Iwo Jima. That number would have risen tenfold in an invasion of the mainland.

12 years of US bombing and sanctions. Remember that.

The sanctions were aimed at preventing Saddam from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. They failed in that but they did destroy his ability to embark on campaigns of conquest.

so youre saying Saddam gases and drains the water supplies of 80% of his people?

Did I say that?

that was a national uprising not a foreign invasion. can't blame you for trying though.

My point was that people died.

a US dictator will rule over a foreign land for maybe more than a year so the US can search the land looking for a puppet who can obey there every command. maybe even an oilman like Karzai was. its just which member of the Bush administrations business interests will come first. Cheney got the last one. Maybe its Rumsfelds turn this time?

Far-fetched speculation at best.

Do you really believe that the US has such benevolent intentions for Iraq? Yes, Iraq may become a "democracy" but it will be a US friendly one, you can be sure of that.

Fairly sure. The US may want to expand the war into Syria and Iran. Setting up a dictatorship in Iraq will criple the public support, at home and abroard, that they will need to do this.

(Edited by Liberty Lover at 11:03 pm on Mar. 29, 2003)

[redstar2000]

"The U.S. may want to expand the war into Syria and Iran..."

Watch it, libertyhater, you're giving away official secrets! :cheesy:

Yes, visions of empire dance in your head, don't they? You have imbibed the most destructive drug of all, libertyhater. Just ask the Germans and the Japanese what the hangover is like?

:cool:

[englandsgay]

jealousy, jealousy, jealousy thats all I hear coming out of your mouths.

[Zombie]

Have you got a link?
sorry guess i spoke a bit too fast. no i don't hold any credible link to back up my claim. i did a little research and it turns out that so far he's gonna second Franks...
so said by CNN and the washington post.

jealousy, jealousy, jealousy thats all I hear coming out of your mouths.
who r u talking to?

[kelvin90701]

Quote: from RedCeltic on 9:28 pm on Mar. 29, 2003
No, this is in response to the idiotic notion that we must murder Iraqi people in order to save them.


I agree. People forget that no one saved us from ourselves. Our history of democracy goes all the way back to Saxon and Norman tribes killing each other, a bit like Iraq before 20 years before Saddam. Much of Europe was united by brutal kings who were able to kill thier enemies, kill thier enemies families, and kill thier enemies friends. Sound more like Saddam, but we got rid of our kings, no one saved us from ourselves. A democracy that is just handed to the Iraqi will not be appreciated as much if they are able to take it for themselves.

It may idealist to spare the lives of many people and grow a democracy in Iraq, but that is not how we got ours. It has been done in Germany and Japan, but those people were already united as a nation. Iraq is still tribal. I am keeping my fingers and toes crossed on this one.

[synthesis]

Many more people would have died in a conventional invasion of the Japanese mainland than the 250, 000 or so that were killed in and as a consequence of the bombing of Hiroshima ans Nagasaki.

This is untrue. Japan was in miserable shape at that point, especially after the firebombing of Tokyo in which over 80,000 civilians were killed. The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, which was set up in 1944 by the War Department to investigate the potency of the various aerial attacks America used in the war. They interviewed hundreds of Japanese military officers, and here is what they concluded.

“Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to December 31 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”

The bombs were dropped on August 6 and 9th, of course. However, the Japanese code had been broken before the war had even started. Japanese authorities had considered surrendering a full year before the bombings, and the Japanese ambassador to Moscow had initiated peace terms. The only thing holding the Japanese back from unconditional surrender was the demand that the Emporer be dethroned, as he was a religious figure to the Japanese.

In other words - the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were completely unnecessary.

The sanctions were aimed at preventing Saddam from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. They failed in that but they did destroy his ability to embark on campaigns of conquest.

They also succeeded in killing a million innocent Iraqi infants - children under five.

My point was that people died.

Fidel had the support of his people, and still does.