Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by clv101, Jan 18, 2006.
didnt come across that way to me clv
>| Raoh |<
It might be simplistic but the fact is that without oil the west would not be the slightest bit interested in the middle east, so at least we could then say with total conviction that Iraq were entirely to blame for their own situation.
Once you add decades of aggression from the west towards the middle east it then becomes impossible to say what might have happened in Iraq today without western interference. Who knows what the country would have turned into. It could have capitalised on it's oil and become incredibly rich and powerful, or it could have had a leader that stole all the oil riches for himself. I would guess the latter admittedly, but we just can't say for sure can we? And the same applies to the many other countries where we have interfered for reasons of resources.
Just like blaming the insurgents. Yes they are killing Iraqis and they are obviously to be condemned for that, but without the initial massive invasion by us there would BE no insurgency in the first place, or at least not as much as their currently is. There were better ways to remove Saddam than bombing cities, but of course removing Saddam peacefully and democratically was never the intention.
yes because Saddam would have just give up his leadership anyway
>| Raoh |<
Not lightly no, almost certainly not, but if we were that bothered about deposing him we could have arranged a military coup (it's been done before many times), assassinated him and his closest henchmen, enforced fair elections after that etc. etc. but as I said that wasn't the goal so there was no intention of ever doing it that way.
no not lightly, he'd have taken a lot of people down with him, if a military coup happened and failed... he'd slaughter thousands just for an attempt on his life, i believe in GW1 that one of his commanders did this after loosing the largest tank battle that had happened (i'm quite sure of this)
Assassinate him and his henchmen and there would be an outcry or if he got wind of it, he'd be even more meniacal and killed anyone suspected
there is no peace without war i believe someone said once
>| Raoh |<
But the invasion failed too (if we pretend that removing Saddam was the intention), given that it took months after the initial invasion to actually capture him, and even then he wasn't really "captured" given that a family member gave him up (I think). So that shows just how little power he really had, if even with months of bombardment from us he still couldn't just click his fingers and get his death squads wiping out the population like you imply.
Besides, even if he could, is that any worse than the mass civilian casualties and massive infrastructure damage that the war has caused?
the invasion has not failed... elections are beginning, and obligations that America promised are very slowly being put into place. It took time to capture him yes of course Iraqs quite a big place. I remember that prat that came on TV (Sky iirc) and started bleating and putting down a US Defence official/spokesman saying where is Saddam etc, right ridiculing him about it taking the mickey cause they hadnt caught him 3days later the tyrant was found in a ditch, the official came back onto the telly looking rather smug.. Joe Bloggs has declined our invitation to attend this meeting this time... yeah cause he's gonna get some medicine back!
Mass civilian casualties? At least we havent intentionally gone and chucked people through plastic shredders, shot them in the head thinking it was fun or feeding them to tigers, instead (i know its still wrong but it has to be said) our civilian deaths are attributed to collateral (when its our bombers) and is entirely the work of suicide bombers from Iran, and idiots of the old RG
Iraq had no infrastructure before the war! Since the end of the GW2 there are now over 100,000 nurses in Iraq doing a job!
>| Raoh |<
There's a video "Did you ever wonder what 2000 looks like?" which is very sobering. I can't link to it because of one sweary, but it's worth a watch.
suicide bombers from iran....
problem is internal not external, pentagon reports confirm this by estimating 90+% of the resistance is iraqi.
looks like u totally ignored my post.
I'm not going to paint a totally rosy picture because it was never like that, but the fact is before GW1 and sanctions the majority had clean water, health care, good education record, low infant mortality rates etc. The same can't be said now. As for the current elections, well, we all know they can never be fair elections. A leader will never be allowed who would go against America's wishes or else the whole war would have been a pointless waste of money, and that clearly can't be allowed to happen.
I'm fairly sure that this is not a justifiable statement. Whilst it's infrastructure was not at western levels, even before GW1, it could not reall b accused of lacking infrastructure.
we've already covered the water/health care solutions, water is now lower under US command, health care is better (100,000 nurses has to count for something plus equipment donations from hospitals in US) education is just as good, infant mortality will grow (100,000 nurses has to count for something*2)
they wont be fair else Saddam or some other mad mullah would be in power shouting: "Lets wipe Israel off the map!"
>| Raoh |<
no it isnt, neither is saying it was relatively fine before Gulf War 1
remember Kurds in the street gassed to death?
>| Raoh |<
Well, don't forget Saddam was our "friend" while that was going on.
Also, rumour has it that he didn't gas the kurds...
<I'll add my standard disclaimer for the validity of that article - people can draw their own conclusions from the "evidence" in the article>
I actually do remeber this happening, but I don't see what this has to do with your infrastructure claim. Iraq, before GW1, had suffered a lot of damage in the Iran/Iraq war, but the country was not at a point of having no infrastructure. It had government, power supplies, water supplies, medical expertise, a highly educated population (apart form notable ethnic groups). It was not a country without infrastructure.
Rumour has it that the Holocaust never happened either
or was that the Iranian President :confuzzled:
>| Raoh |<
i never said it had no infrastructure, i stated it didnt have as much infrastructure as some of our posters would have you believe.
>| Raoh |<
off home tata
sorry, I must have taken this the wrong way then.
Slight difference there though. There is masses of evidence for the holocaust. There is apparently no evidence that Saddam directly and deliberately gasses the Kurds. As the article says, they were just caught in the crossfire in the Iraq/Iran war (in which we and America supported Iraq).
So "collateral damage" basically
No, they've been napalmed, tortured to death, lined up in the streets of Fallujah and shot, carpet bombed, poisoned with DU, had hospitals shut and medical equipment confiscated, have 1 hour in 6 of electricity, queue for hours for petrol (when available) in the 5th largest producer, etc.
Over 100,000 people is a lot of collateral damage for pinpoint strikes and laser guided weapons wouldn't you say?
Actually, yes, you did.
Separate names with a comma.