[DevaRextusidis]

Right now it's worse, but maybe if they get a good partition thing going it ould get better

[ruforumczspam]

Not yet.

[SnareeWer]

This poll is invalid

[sirmzereigMix]

The Kurds were somewhat protected with the no fly zone and whatnot. While it certianly wasn't the best situation for them it's not as if they were being killed left and right.

[janeloveslifenow]

A partition would be helpful absolutely, there would be those unwilling to move, and those who would face retribution for being suspected sympathizers, there would be many problems, including the possibility of future wars between the new countries, as has happened between India and Pakistan.

[truttyMab]

The entire thing would go to the Turks with our blessing...rather than having the Iranians get it all.

[Donadoni1809]

That's one reason why we shouldn't go too far, possibly just to Kuwait. It would be fun to feed the Iraqis weapons to use against Iranians.

[Fuerfsanv]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
IMHO, if we can ever get our heinies out of Iraq, the Iranians will be given the heave-ho soon after. Arabs hate Persians, even if they are both Shitte. Who's going to give it to the Iranians? Iraq is smaller and less populous than Iran, even if it remains unified and the fighting ends.

[Qzmsdoem]

Not all of us are hypocrites, Sava. I opposed the war from the moment the Administration started selling the idea.

[LSg44PDu]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Not all of us are hypocrites, Sava. Everyone is. It's just a question of to what degree one is a hypocrite.
I opposed the war from the moment the Administration started selling the idea. So? I don't know exactly what your reasons were or how each of those reasons played into your opposition. I also objected to the invasion well beforehand. But I'm not about to pretend (and I'm not accusing you of doing so) to care about the Iraqi people, or that the welfare of the Iraqi people was tops on my list for reasons not to go to war.

But I see this argument coming from people who were opposed to the war... that somehow we ought to be doing what's in the best interest of the Iraqi people.

Sorry, but most of the people opposed to the war in Iraq who are saying things like that didn't give half a **** about the interests of the Iraqi people when the War wasn't an issue. It's become a popular thing to say. But it's just a meaningless talking point. It's hypocrisy.

If everyone who made such statements truly cared about the interests of the Iraqi people (and the people of Darfur and every other group of people who are suffering from violence in the world), then the United States would be taking a more active role in policing the world with the help of the international community.

It's just like in the Muslim world how leaders pretend to bash Israel and care so much about the Palestinians. Oh sure, it's popular on the Arab street to say you are going to crush the Zionists... but it's all rabble rousing nonsense... just like all this bullshit about the Iraqi people.

Why can't people just be honest? There's nothing wrong with being concerned with your own interests first. That's not to say you wish bad things on other people, but there's a pecking order when it comes to who you care about and how much you care about them.

There are some people out there who really do care about every other human being on the planet and demonstrate that love of their fellow human being with their actions. But most everyone else just pretends to be that way because they don't want to seem like an *******. Hypocrisy makes people an *******. Looking after your own self-interest? That just makes you a human being.

[sitescools]

[iOqedeyH]

hehe, Melibu

[eEwbYjOH]

We ****ed up that country Intentionally...either that or the people running the war are criminally incompetent.

[usatramadolusa]

Originally posted by Sava
Everyone is. It's just a question of to what degree one is a hypocrite.
So? I don't know exactly what your reasons were or how each of those reasons played into your opposition. I also objected to the invasion well beforehand. But I'm not about to pretend (and I'm not accusing you of doing so) to care about the Iraqi people, or that the welfare of the Iraqi people was tops on my list for reasons not to go to war.

But I see this argument coming from people who were opposed to the war... that somehow we ought to be doing what's in the best interest of the Iraqi people.

Sorry, but most of the people opposed to the war in Iraq who are saying things like that didn't give half a **** about the interests of the Iraqi people when the War wasn't an issue. It's become a popular thing to say. But it's just a meaningless talking point. It's hypocrisy.

If everyone who made such statements truly cared about the interests of the Iraqi people (and the people of Darfur and every other group of people who are suffering from violence in the world), then the United States would be taking a more active role in policing the world with the help of the international community.

It's just like in the Muslim world how leaders pretend to bash Israel and care so much about the Palestinians. Oh sure, it's popular on the Arab street to say you are going to crush the Zionists... but it's all rabble rousing nonsense... just like all this bullshit about the Iraqi people.

Why can't people just be honest? There's nothing wrong with being concerned with your own interests first. That's not to say you wish bad things on other people, but there's a pecking order when it comes to who you care about and how much you care about them.

There are some people out there who really do care about every other human being on the planet and demonstrate that love of their fellow human being with their actions. But most everyone else just pretends to be that way because they don't want to seem like an *******. Hypocrisy makes people an *******. Looking after your own self-interest? That just makes you a human being. I wrote a term paper for my ethics class in late 2002 about why the Iraq war would be wrong. I can't remember the exact justification, but I seem to remember that at least part of it was that it would destablize the region and send the message to regional hegemons that it's ok to invade weaker countries you don't like as long as you can make up some reasons.

Later, over countless debates, I set out a more practical set of reasons:
1) It would tell other countries that WMD were the only way to make the US mind its own business.
2) Oppressive dictatorship is better than chaos, at least for outside parties (neighbors who get refugees, the US, etc.)
3) There was no proven link to Al Qaeda.
4) the invasion would piss off muslims.
5) etc.

I don't think I've ever claimed to care about the Iraqi people. It's sad that bad stuff is happening to them, but if I felt that it was my duty to care, there's so many other countries that are pretty screwed up right now.

edit: For the record I also opposed the invasion of Afghanistan and Clinton's bombing of Serbia. I admit that in those cases I may have been wrong.

[gusunsuth]

Originally posted by Lancer
That's one reason why we shouldn't go too far, possibly just to Kuwait. It would be fun to feed the Iraqis weapons to use against Iranians.
Pssst, the US and the brits tried that before in 1940s in Vietnam. And see how that turned out...

Maybe we should just leave them sort it out amongst each other

[loikrso]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
I wrote a term paper for my ethics class in late 2002 about why the Iraq war would be wrong. I can't remember the exact justification, but I seem to remember that at least part of it was that it would destablize the region and send the message to regional hegemons that it's ok to invade weaker countries you don't like as long as you can make up some reasons.

Later, over countless debates, I set out a more practical set of reasons:
1) It would tell other countries that WMD were the only way to make the US mind its own business.
2) Oppressive dictatorship is better than chaos, at least for outside parties (neighbors who get refugees, the US, etc.)
3) There was no proven link to Al Qaeda.
4) the invasion would piss off muslims.
5) etc.

I don't think I've ever claimed to care about the Iraqi people. It's sad that bad stuff is happening to them, but if I felt that it was my duty to care, there's so many other countries that are pretty screwed up right now. Oh and

Totally agree.

edit: For the record I also opposed the invasion of Afghanistan and Clinton's bombing of Serbia. I admit that in those cases I may have been wrong. Afghanistan was another **** up. IMO the needed to wait another six months exhausting diplomatic routes and building up intelligence on the ground. Leaning on Pakistan to lean on the Taliban might have meant them giving up Bin Laden, or at least his whereabouts...

As for Serbia... WTF!?!?!?!?!?

This is going to sound controversial, but not only was the bombing utterly wrong - but I think we actually targeted the wrong bad guys! The KLA were the ones on the offensive trying to rip a piece of the country away from the Serbs, but then when people was the heavy-handed approach of the Serbs - everyone immediately thought of Srebrenica and the massacres resulting from those.

The Kosovo War and bombing of Serbia was the result of the West's guilt over that being compounded by belatedly trying to atone for that past sin and making an even worse **** up.

Most of the time, if you have to resort to fighting you have already lost the argument.

[priordine]

The poll and results illutrate the lack of intelligence outside of poster's areas of endeavor.

A) It isn't under Bush.
B) For those who think it was better with Hussein alive, you're an idiot.

[Uninkipsyncp]

Iraqis would be best off under their locally elected government *if* it were able to pull its act together enough to effectively govern. I'm not sure it could if it tried however.

Failing that, they'd probably have a lower violent death rate and much stronger economy under Saddam so that would be the next best thing.

Iraqi's being governed by Bush is surely the worst of all possible options.

[viagraman]

That's right, try and taint the rest of us with your failings. You were wrong, just suck it up like a man instead of bleating like a stuck pig... Sava was anti-war, you schmuck. His point, which I don't necessarily agree with, is that (most) people in the West don't really care about Iraqis. It's PC to claim to care, but Sava's calling bullshit.

I disagree to a point. I care, but I care more about me and mine. Sava's taking it a step further... 'cause he's Sava and that's how he rolls.

-Arrian

[EvaQWmrm]

Saddam is dead and buried. I dare say Iraqis under Saddam would not be a good thing. They likely would suffocate very soon.

Under Bush at lest they're above ground.


For the record this poll is invalid and sux.