Why ? You think it was safer, more properous, more comfy ?

Ouh, and someone mentioned that terroists were killed. Yes. And for each one several other spopped up. By numbers we have more terrorists now in the world than before. In past months two or three times I remember to have red from American and British newspaper that assessements by US authorities cam to the conclusion that today there is more terrorist activity on a gloabl scale than before, and that the world has become less instead of more safer. If you fight with a hydra, you do not measure success by number of heads in your bag.

I understand that as an attempt to be funny!?

Not at all. Why would you prefer living in Iraq before 2003 instead of after ?

--- litle later --- reread thread ---

Ah, missed it at first, now read it. Always get confussed with long parts of text.

Iraq before 2003 was only relatively safe and comfy for people that keep their mouth shut. People that protested would end up dead.

And protesting, when they come to get our fellow citizans, we must all do, even when it does not concerns outrselves , otherwise we will be next. Never forget what Pastor Martin Niemöller wrote in 1945 !

- - - - -

Are you serious ? Was probably one of the specialities of all the secret services. What you think happened to all those people that disappeared ?

How can one say that ?? Will we ever get reliable statistics of the pre-2003 years ?

One group of criminal extremists keeping the other groups of criminal extremists out. Well done Sadam !

I base my statements that you quote on evaluation of people observing at location. Even representants of Iraqui authorities and institutions have been quoted repeatedly since let'S say roughly one year, saying that the ammount of torture being used by the present secret polices easily rivals that being used under Saddam, both in quantity and "quality". that the institutions are also infiltrated with agents of the isnurgents, and the various ethnic factions, does not help to make it less harmful. It seems that also a lot of open bills currently are settled. In no way I have the impression that survival and caring for a family is easier today than it was under Saddam. At work I know a woman from Iran, mother of a family. Although they fled because Saddam, their family agrees on what I say here, that today it has become worse than it was before. there was not that ammount of violance than there is today, simply that, and for most people, that is my impression, the supply situation with goods of the daily need was better - ironically especially during the sanctions - something that often has been stressed by correspondents in that time. It comes down to this - survivial and caring for my family has not become easier, but more difficult in the grim reality of today. Iraq has become the Lebanon of the Gulf. With the products from it's terrorist creation program we will have fun for many many years to come.

Maybe you remember years ago I argued like you and said that it is a bad idea to accept tyrants in power. I have changed my mind in the face of the threat of Europe being islamized. Saddam was no danger for anyone in the West, no matter what the propaganda tried to make us believe. the mullah regime that Iraq without any doubt will get sooner or later - that is a threat and a challenge that we cannot deal with. I see it pragmatic. Better one Saddam, than one more Mullah-Regime. Look at Egypt. western demand for democracy - elections - and suddenly the ultra-Islamic Muslim brotherhood seized every fifth seat in parliament (it would have been far more if Mubarak really would have allowed free elections). Is this what you want? Be careful what you wish before you answer. And I predict one thing: it is only a question of time until Afghnaistan falls back to where it was, too. I see it as almost inevitable.

I rest my case, what was I thinking, I always thought it was a Sadam-regime, and now it turns out it was just 1 guy. Did we start a war for that ?? Ridiculous !!

Judging by the outcome: indeed. Leave the hairsplitting to others, Drebbel, you know better what I was meaning. ;) I don't want to fight with you about nothing.

Good, I do not want to discuss either with people that call my opionion/arguments hairsplitting.

Drebbel: - out

The 35,000 - 100,000 civilians killed since 2003 won't be doing much protesting.

Who is this "we" you refer to? Were you ever in Iraq protesting Saddam Hussein's regime? Are the Iraqis your "fellow citizens"? You are confusing an invasion and occupation by a foreign power with an internal uprising. They are not the same thing.

Will we ever get reliable statistics from the post-2003 years? The most reliable looking estimates I've seen so far put the number of casualties at between 35,000-100,000 ... in other words, 70,000 dead plus or minus a few tens of thousands.

With such a low bar to set the expectations at you'd almost think the US couldn't possibly do any worse... by the way, how many severed heads have they found over there this week? 4 is it?

Your remark on that I only meant a single person when saying Saddam (like many pliticians did before me!) - that was hairsplitting, admit it! :) Most people do mean the regime when mentioning that single name, and I am sure you know that.

Skybird you crack me up...you remind me of the big computer brain in I-Robot..."My logic is undeniable.....My logic is undeniable....." Someone needs to insert some nan-nites into your brain to slow it down lol.I wish I kept my "Wizard" pic of ya...I predict, I predict, BS all the time....It is not prediction pointing out the obvious things in life.You yourself proclaim the absurdity of the Muslim faith practiced in the countries over there and I my self have been en-lightened by alot of your posting rergarding this.The world is on a steady track leading to destruction and nothing you or any "Human" can do about it.The sun rises and again hastens to the place from whence it came.You don't have to be Christian or Jew or Muslim to know be-heading innocent people is wrong.Or strapping bombs to yourself and blowing up you countrymen because one is called Shia and one is called Sunni.This is maddness on a grand scale.Whether America would have gone in when daddy Bush was pres or now I feel the outcome would have been exactly the same.Only because America does not do what conquers of old have done and that is to make the loser submit like a whipped dog and if it doesn't it got shot.America used to do that 200 yrs ago ask any American Indian here that is left alive.It is a no-win only because we care and hate to see the civil war that will ensue now and more innocent people will die.If we didn't care then we would have massacred them ALL and be sending all that black gold home now for free.I do not know what you could do now except divide the country up into the seperate sects possibly, it seems it is being divided up now by themselves to just stay alive.I love ya Sky :)

What! the americans are losing the war!!!:nope: When in doubt call the kiwis!:yep:

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c3...azion/kiwi.jpg

:arrgh!:

C/mon Kiwi, you need that army, it's the only one you've got
:rotfl: ;) :p :sunny:

Guerrilla warfare is hard to fight against. Anyone in the crowd can be a terrorist and there´s nothing you can do. Well, you could shoot the whole bunch, but that would look bad in the news.;)

I'm calling it a UN mandate because the United Nations is the international body that is charged with settling international disputes and because it was the UN that authorized the removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Though a very flawed and imperfect body, it exists to at least attempt to resolve international disputes so that armed intervention isn't the first and only recourse between nations who have a dispute. Certainly it was the US who led the 32 nation coalition that removed Iraq from Kuwait, but it was the UN who legitimized the action and it turned out to be a pretty quick and clean process.

As to the weapons inspections, I guess we have a different take on how that played out. I'm not disputing that it involved a lot of arm twisting, but the results were what mattered and it looked to me like they were getting results - right up until the US had them pulled from Iraq.

Quote:

Yeah, sure. Saddam let them in at the last hour to pull the strings of the appeasement crowd. "Look, I let the weapons inspectors in, I'm a good guy". Hard to believe but that was an effective strategy, some people bought it.

My reasoning was pretty simple: if the US couldn't find Osama Bin Laden in a cave in Afghanistan, why would I believe they could find Iraq's alleged WMDs? And with Bin Laden still on the loose and Al Qaeda still hatching plots, why focus attention on a country that had no connection to Al Qaeda or 9/11? It didn't make any sense to me then and it still doesn't now.

Quote:

Yeah, you're really reaching now. Dictator Bremer, huh? Where is he now? Come on, get serious, man.

He was handed a Medal of Freedom in the same ceremony where it was awarded to George Tenet (who was blamed for the "bad intelligence" on Iraq's WMDs) and Jay Garner (who said he was sacked after only one month on the job because he wanted free elections and rejected the imposed programme of privatization).

As to what I said about Bremer, I don't consider that reaching. He was appointed overseer of Iraq for a little over a year, and in that time issued some 100 odd decrees which included:

• Orders 37 and 49 which reduced the top tax rates from 45% to 15%.
  
  Order 54 which abolished all import duties on Iraq, aside from a 5% reconstruction levy.
  
  Order 39 that allows for a 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi companies excluding those in the oil, gas, and banking sectors.
  
  Order 2 that dissolved the Iraqi army.

When you have an appointed official from a foreign occupying power issuing such decrees I call it as I see it. International law also stipulates that an occupying power is required to respect existing laws unless absolutely prevented and that doesn't look to be the case there. Most of this moot now anyway, but its still interesting how two people can look at the same events and reach such different conclusions on them.

The weps inspections were getting results only because Bush Jr was
effectively posturing for military-imposed enforcement of the UN resolutions. Honestly, Saddam would have never backed up without this threat of force from the US. Exactly how Iran has treated the EU Three (France, UK, Germany) over uranium enrichment. Stalling, phony negotiations, utter disdain.

Certainly there has to be someone making the decisions, and in many cases, they are unilateral. But my point about Dictator Bremer is that you and I both know that is temporary. It's understood, and it has historical precedent. The US sets up an interim government and takes steps to turn power over to the indigenous people.

Yeah, it is interesting, how people can see the same issue with vastly different conclusions.

Of course he was appointed. How else could an occupation government possibly function? If you think things over there are a mess now, what do you think the country would have been like if he hadn't been? No temporary system is perfect, but how else would you suggest that the infrastructure of a country ruled for years and years by a ruthless man be properly restored? How would you provide electricity? Plumbing? Communications? Transportation? Further, what would the outcome have been if free elections had been held within days or hours after Saddam's statue was pulled down? Do you think they would have been fair? Orderly? Non-violent? How many people would have understood that they could vote? Let alone done so? Why should the occupation of Iraq play out differently from any other post-war occupation?

More sophistry. As usual you wield a half-truth. Saddam's army was dissolved. You conveniently leave out that the Iraqi Army has been rebuilding ever since.

Respect existing laws of the tyrant we went there to remove?

I've been following events in Iran so far as well. Time will tell I guess on how things play out, but the two things I'd rule out so far are (1) the use of tactical nuclear weapons on Iran (I see the posturing there as far as these go as just that); (2) any kind of ground campaign. The only question to me is on whether or not the use of force will become necessary (which would consist of some kind of air campaign), and if so when.