George Coming For A Visit

[Cobra1]

Iraq was an essential part to stopping the network of support for Islamic extermist terror. bbk

Such an uninformed opinion. Saddam, like Assad had no use for Islamic terror, and actually were quite helpful in suppressing it.
While the West condems Saddam for his brutality - much of it was actually repressing Islmaic terror - which is what you uninformed fail to realize.

Assad in Syria is similar. He put down a rebellion in Hama, killed 18-22,000 people who were rebelling called the Muslem Brotherhood - or Islamic Jihad in Egypt (killed Sadat) - these people are the true threat to our societies and freedom - not OBL - who in some dimensions, seeks mostly to free Saudi among other issues like Palestine. The MB are the true threat to the WEst and our Christian societies -

Secular leaders in the ME are rare, which is why removing them will hurt us infuture - and actually take us backwards in the march towards democracy in the region - look at Iran.

 

[Goober Mcfly]

Godwin!

 

[Cobra1]

...
Does that mean Adolf Hitler is redeemed now? After all he took Germany out of the depression. Build the autobahn. Build the VW and made Germany technology the most advanced at the time.
Does that give him redeeming qualities??Don't think so.

Your statement ignores all the dead lying buried in the sand...

Hitler and Saddam are on two different levels - Saddam actually did our bidding in many ways. Lots of innocent were killed and bgrutalized - no questions there - yes he was brutal - but dont forget he was our man in the region until he mis read the US Ambassadors reponse to his plans to invade Kuwait. "What you guys do in the region is your business" - as go ahead. Kuwait was drilling his oil after all, and like Taiwan, used to be part of Iraq.

Many of the dead in the sand were trying to over throw him - and were Shiite with support from Iran (and verbally the US after GW1) seeking to install a theocracy like Iran. Many fo them were true terrorists and their dispatch was a service to all - especially the west.


You must remember something, things inthe ME are still rather tribal, and rules are different than here. If Assad did not respond to the several attempts at his life - he dies next time - same with Saddam. All I am saying is that removing a Baath party that is securlar - and probably only a few iterations away from a deomocratic structure that we in the West aspire to put in - has actually taken several steps backwards - despite what we think is going on right here. For every action there is a re-action. Think Iran in 1950s which helped create the Islamic revolution in 1979. You just cannot take our values, and install them everywhere cause they are not valued or wanted by other cultures (yet).

 

[langeweile]

Hitler and Saddam are on two different levels - Saddam actually did our bidding in many ways. Lots of innocent were killed and bgrutalized - no questions there - yes he was brutal - but dont forget he was our man in the region until he mis read the US Ambassadors reponse to his plans to invade Kuwait. "What you guys do in the region is your business" - as go ahead. Kuwait was drilling his oil after all, and like Taiwan, used to be part of Iraq.

Many of the dead in the sand were trying to over throw him - and were Shiite with support from Iran (and verbally the US after GW1) seeking to install a theocracy like Iran. Many fo them were true terrorists and their dispatch was a service to all - especially the west.


You must remember something, things inthe ME are still rather tribal, and rules are different than here. If Assad did not respond to the several attempts at his life - he dies next time - same with Saddam. All I am saying is that removing a Baath party that is securlar - and probably only a few iterations away from a deomocratic structure that we in the West aspire to put in - has actually taken several steps backwards - despite what we think is going on right here. For every action there is a re-action. Think Iran in 1950s which helped create the Islamic revolution in 1979. You just cannot take our values, and install them everywhere cause they are not valued or wanted by other cultures (yet).

When it is all said and done, maybe we just have to accept an Iraq, that is not our ideal of a democratic state.
I thought initially that invading Iraq was a good thing, but I have changed my mind. Like most people Iwas under the impression that they actually would welcome their freedom. Now I understand that these people just think differently.
If they choose a goverment that is based on Sharia, we have to accept it, like it or not. At least it will be a goverment of their own choice.

 

[Annessa]

I bought my tin foil cap at Radio Shack too

Grow up.
At least Fang posted about his views and opinions and for that I respect him, whether we agree or not.



Annessa

 

[papasmerf]

Grow up.



Annessa

Damn


Guess I will see if radio shack will take mine back

 

[Cobra1]

If they choose a goverment that is based on Sharia, we have to accept it, like it or not. At least it will be a goverment of their own choice.

I dont mean this to sound condescending - but then the real brutal repression may start. Civil war with significant loss of life, curtailment of liberties that they enjoyed under Saddam - freedom of education, womans right to career and advancement, and just personal security.

Lake and Clinton had the chance to take Saddam out with one of his own divisions and declined after infilrtrating Iraq. Many people were killed as a result. They declined cause in a comprehensive assessment, leaving Saddam in power rather than taking him out was probably in the Us's best interest as long as his kids didnt succeed him. Most of an Iraq division was willing to do the deed, and if removing Saddam was the right thing to do, that was the time to do it - and no US/Coalition lives woul dhave been lost.

 

[onthebottom]

This from the guy who just after his election in 2000 said the US is not in the business of nation building and then went out of his way to ignore both Sharon and Arafat that is until that decission came back to bite him in the arss on 9/11. It took 3000 lives to get him to do the intelligent thing and try to stop the flashpoint for Muslim extremism. I'm sorry OTB, I don't trust this guys foriegn policy common sense or the people who advise him.

bbk

as the shellshock of the 2004 Potus election lets go of its hold on me

Nation building is messy work as we've all seen. I think the POTUS sees the importance of closure of the Israel / Palestinian issue once and for all with a Palestinian state. You will note that two years ago I said one of the main side benefits of these wars was the US would have to bring a conclusion to the Israeli issue once and for all.

Pardon me if I don't take the forecast of Mr. "Kerry by 10" as gospel ;-)

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

I dont mean this to sound condescending - but then the real brutal repression may start. Civil war with significant loss of life, curtailment of liberties that they enjoyed under Saddam - freedom of education, womans right to career and advancement, and just personal security.

Lake and Clinton had the chance to take Saddam out with one of his own divisions and declined after infilrtrating Iraq. Many people were killed as a result. They declined cause in a comprehensive assessment, leaving Saddam in power rather than taking him out was probably in the Us's best interest as long as his kids didnt succeed him. Most of an Iraq division was willing to do the deed, and if removing Saddam was the right thing to do, that was the time to do it - and no US/Coalition lives woul dhave been lost.

That’s just silly - how many people were dieing in pre-war Iraq every year? The UN said as many as 35k children under the age of 10 were dieing. How many adults, how many rapes - I think you overstepped reality with your statement.

OTB

 

[langeweile]

I dont mean this to sound condescending - but then the real brutal repression may start. Civil war with significant loss of life, curtailment of liberties that they enjoyed under Saddam - freedom of education, womans right to career and advancement, and just personal security.

Lake and Clinton had the chance to take Saddam out with one of his own divisions and declined after infilrtrating Iraq. Many people were killed as a result. They declined cause in a comprehensive assessment, leaving Saddam in power rather than taking him out was probably in the Us's best interest as long as his kids didnt succeed him. Most of an Iraq division was willing to do the deed, and if removing Saddam was the right thing to do, that was the time to do it - and no US/Coalition lives woul dhave been lost.

You are right. I am not implying that it would be good for them. Sooner or later the people need to get up and take care of their own country. It is presumptious for us to think that we know what is best for them.
If the majority of the people decide in an open and fair election, the course of their future, are we to disagree with their choice?

As for their own coup d' etates, maybe the people were not ready for that. Change requires willingness to change. Without willingness it is futile.

 

[Goober Mcfly]

As for their own coup d' etates, maybe the people were not ready for that. Change requires willingness to change. Without willingness it is futile.

Wow. You obviously know nothing about the psychology of living under a cruel dictator.

 

[langeweile]

Wow. You obviously know nothing about the psychology of living under a cruel dictator.

I wish you would read all the previous posts, before jumping in. Read the context of my statement
BTW.. I do

 

[Goober Mcfly]

You don't expect me to read EVERYTHING, do you?

</sorry>

 

[Drunken Master]

Nation building is messy work as we've all seen. I think the POTUS sees the importance of closure of the Israel / Palestinian issue once and for all with a Palestinian state.

OTB

As I've noted on a few occaissions here, a Palestinian state - at this late stage of the game, anyway - is an unlikely solution to the Palestinian crisis. The fact is, any such state would be a complete and utter basket case, without any viable economy and would surely become in short order and even greater haven for terrorists.

I'm more and more convinced that the only viable solution for the Levant is a single-state solution, which will mean - horror of horrors! - Jews and Arabs might actually need to learn to get along.

 

[onthebottom]

As I've noted on a few occaissions here, a Palestinian state - at this late stage of the game, anyway - is an unlikely solution to the Palestinian crisis. The fact is, any such state would be a complete and utter basket case, without any viable economy and would surely become in short order and even greater haven for terrorists.

I'm more and more convinced that the only viable solution for the Levant is a single-state solution, which will mean - horror of horrors! - Jews and Arabs might actually need to learn to get along.

I think Sharon, PLO, EU and the US are all committed to a two state solution. That said, I would see all of your problems as expected. A Palestinian state will require decades of investment to be viable - luckily there are many rich countries that can help - EU, US, all those ME countries compensating the families of terrorists.....

OTB

 

[red]

hook him up with badkat?

I was actually trying to be polite. badkat likes bush- so why not treat him right- he does represent a close friend

 

[langeweile]

I think Sharon, PLO, EU and the US are all committed to a two state solution. That said, I would see all of your problems as expected. A Palestinian state will require decades of investment to be viable - luckily there are many rich countries that can help - EU, US, all those ME countries compensating the families of terrorists.....

OTB

While I appreciate their commitment..it will never happen.
The final solution will be, that one of them is being erased or assimilated.
Sorry I wish I could be more optimistic.

 

[onthebottom]

While I appreciate their commitment..it will never happen.
The final solution will be, that one of them is being erased or assimilated.
Sorry I wish I could be more optimistic.

Can we agree not to use the phrase "final solution" when discussing Israel or Jews.

We disagree, we'll see who's right over time. I think Israel is more desperate for a two state solution, if not the Jews will be a minority in Israel by 2020.

OTB

 

[tompeepin]

Not that my opinion matters ...

... but ...

I doubt that the Arabs will ever accept the Jews. Liberal Jews accept the Arabs. Only extreme right wing Jews do not. The Arabs attacked Israel and thus lost land. However in this day and age countries cannot keep land acquired in war. Thus Israel needs to leave the occupied territories and build a wall. All Jews inside the wall all Arabs outside the wall. The only problem being Jerusalem. Make it an international free city.

All just in my humble delusion ...

 

[onthebottom]

Re: Not that my opinion matters ...

... but ...

I doubt that the Arabs will ever accept the Jews. Liberal Jews accept the Arabs. Only extreme right wing Jews do not. The Arabs attacked Israel and thus lost land. However in this day and age countries cannot keep land acquired in war. Thus Israel needs to leave the occupied territories and build a wall. All Jews inside the wall all Arabs outside the wall. The only problem being Jerusalem. Make it an international free city.

All just in my humble delusion ...

Not quite that simple:

-many Parisians who live in the occupied territories work in Israel
- the wall is routed to take occupied territory and encompass West Bank settlements
- there are many (millions) of Arabs who are Israeli citizens and thus will stay in Israel regardless of the outcome

OTB