If no weapons are found, perhaps Blix will invite Saddam Hussein back to rule Iraq. Blix could help him set up his old torture chambers. The Shia Muslims would really rejoice over that. I know you do not want this to happen. I have read that you want Saddam gone. But I have not read how you would have done this. How would Blix running around the desert have gotten rid of Saddam? How would the terror and the torture been ended for the Iraqi's.
My sister said Do Not Post This. That no one will not answer these questions of mine. That it is impossible to reason with unreasonable people. Is this true?
hell bent on war
-
tom.d.stiller
- Posts: 1213
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 8:18 am
- Location: ... between the lines ...
- Contact:
Dear MALSI,
welcome to this forum of free speech and open discussion. Usually you can trust that someone will answer a question when you post one, though, of course, it might be an answer that you do not like. We all had to learn to live with that. But I'd rather not consider anyone who posted here as "unreasonable people", "impossible to reason with". People are of different opinions, and have the right to stand up for them, and this essentially is a good thing. Maybe you reconsider this part of your wording.
No one will even think of inviting Saddam back to rule Iraq, whatever the search for weapons of mass destruction might bring. Neither Dr. Hans Blix, nor the Shia Muslims will. And no one will consider setting up the old torture chambers, I hope. Not Dr. Blix, anyway, though I'm not sure about the Shia, when I consider what happened elsewhere.
I'm sure, and you already admitted that, no one here is anything but happy that Saddam finally is gone. The Shia Muslims in Iraq are as happy as George Walker Bush himself about that, the difference being that they don't want an American ex-general residing in his place for a long time. Which brings us to your central and most essential question: How should the "civilized world" have helped the Iraqi people to get rid of Saddam?
Running the risk of repeating in parts what I previously have posted:
first, we never should have helped him rise to power, which we did;
second, we shouldn't have financed him for decades, while the torturing and murder has been going on, which we did;
third, we should have finished the job in 1991, when there was a legal way to do so, which we didn't;
fourth, we should have looked for a legal way instead of misspending the gigantic resources in an attempt to push through an illegal one at all cost.
I freely admit that - with the few resources of my own brain - I cannot point out the ideal way that would have worked (the "silver bullet"); but I can assure you that, if all nations had worked together on finding one, it would have been rather a matter of weeks than of months to find one. Most probably this way would have included that the search for illegal weapons would have been conducted by people like Dr. Blix who know their business of inspecting rather than by those whose competence lies elsewhere (in warfare, for example).
And I believe that this not easily describable way would have really helped the Iraqi people to get rid not only of one terrible dictator, but of dictatorship itself. The way taken (the "stray bullet") most probably will end up in a change of dictators with dictatorship, torture, terror as the underlying constant.
You might not like, dear MALSI, what I gave you for an answer. You might think that I didn't satisfyingly answer the essential question. And if this should be the case, I'm confident to hear from you again. I won't consider you, however, as "unreasonable".
Tom
welcome to this forum of free speech and open discussion. Usually you can trust that someone will answer a question when you post one, though, of course, it might be an answer that you do not like. We all had to learn to live with that. But I'd rather not consider anyone who posted here as "unreasonable people", "impossible to reason with". People are of different opinions, and have the right to stand up for them, and this essentially is a good thing. Maybe you reconsider this part of your wording.
No one will even think of inviting Saddam back to rule Iraq, whatever the search for weapons of mass destruction might bring. Neither Dr. Hans Blix, nor the Shia Muslims will. And no one will consider setting up the old torture chambers, I hope. Not Dr. Blix, anyway, though I'm not sure about the Shia, when I consider what happened elsewhere.
I'm sure, and you already admitted that, no one here is anything but happy that Saddam finally is gone. The Shia Muslims in Iraq are as happy as George Walker Bush himself about that, the difference being that they don't want an American ex-general residing in his place for a long time. Which brings us to your central and most essential question: How should the "civilized world" have helped the Iraqi people to get rid of Saddam?
Running the risk of repeating in parts what I previously have posted:
first, we never should have helped him rise to power, which we did;
second, we shouldn't have financed him for decades, while the torturing and murder has been going on, which we did;
third, we should have finished the job in 1991, when there was a legal way to do so, which we didn't;
fourth, we should have looked for a legal way instead of misspending the gigantic resources in an attempt to push through an illegal one at all cost.
I freely admit that - with the few resources of my own brain - I cannot point out the ideal way that would have worked (the "silver bullet"); but I can assure you that, if all nations had worked together on finding one, it would have been rather a matter of weeks than of months to find one. Most probably this way would have included that the search for illegal weapons would have been conducted by people like Dr. Blix who know their business of inspecting rather than by those whose competence lies elsewhere (in warfare, for example).
And I believe that this not easily describable way would have really helped the Iraqi people to get rid not only of one terrible dictator, but of dictatorship itself. The way taken (the "stray bullet") most probably will end up in a change of dictators with dictatorship, torture, terror as the underlying constant.
You might not like, dear MALSI, what I gave you for an answer. You might think that I didn't satisfyingly answer the essential question. And if this should be the case, I'm confident to hear from you again. I won't consider you, however, as "unreasonable".
Tom
I have a question also, from 1991 to 2003 is a long time right? What was the UN doing in those twelve years? More time? For what?
Tom you use hind sight, and predictions that mean nothing. I am repeating myself also, but have asked for anwers from you people long before the war started, you had none! If you can't do some good well, in my opinion drop it, believe me no one is going to let George Bush forget anything, or let anything be swept under a rug. Next year is the election.
Tom you use hind sight, and predictions that mean nothing. I am repeating myself also, but have asked for anwers from you people long before the war started, you had none! If you can't do some good well, in my opinion drop it, believe me no one is going to let George Bush forget anything, or let anything be swept under a rug. Next year is the election.
Linda
-
tom.d.stiller
- Posts: 1213
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 8:18 am
- Location: ... between the lines ...
- Contact:
It is a long time from 1991 to 2003, Linda, you're absolutely right. And your question is easily answered: the UN found and destroyed more weapons of mass destruction than all the allied forces dod in two wars.
The UN inspectors, as you could be aware of, didn't stop their search because Saddam had thrown them out of the country. They had been withdrawn on US pressure. (GWB had nothing to do with this, I know, but this isn't really relevant, is it?)
I look back, Linda, sometimes in anger, but I do not use hindsight. The things I referred to had been known and published long before the fact. As to my predictions: they might prove wrong, but they never formed an essential part of my arguments. Whereas some predictions of the present US administrations had been proven wrong long before they had been made...
The answers you requested are not there, but why aren't they? The simple reason is, because someone kept those in competent positions from working on real solutions, but spent billions and billions to prepare for a war instead.
Linda, I believe you, but you use a "prediction that means nothing". Next year is the election, true. But does this mean that things won't be "swept under a rug"? Looking back at the Y2K election, i have my doubts. Maybe GWB has certain plans to "give relevance" to the decisions of the American People the same way he tried to "give relevance" to the UN a few months ago (either you follow me, or your decision will be ignored).
I had been ready to drop the issue until more information is available, but questions have been asked. I answered them duly, as I will always do. You may consider the answers insufficient. Then you should say so, and let it stand thus. Whether I "do some good" or not, when I do what I'm doing, is a question, each reader should decide for herself/himself.
Though I strongly disagree with most of your opinions, Linda, I'd never lower myself so much as to say "you're doing no good"...
Kindest regards
Tom
The UN inspectors, as you could be aware of, didn't stop their search because Saddam had thrown them out of the country. They had been withdrawn on US pressure. (GWB had nothing to do with this, I know, but this isn't really relevant, is it?)
I look back, Linda, sometimes in anger, but I do not use hindsight. The things I referred to had been known and published long before the fact. As to my predictions: they might prove wrong, but they never formed an essential part of my arguments. Whereas some predictions of the present US administrations had been proven wrong long before they had been made...
The answers you requested are not there, but why aren't they? The simple reason is, because someone kept those in competent positions from working on real solutions, but spent billions and billions to prepare for a war instead.
Linda, I believe you, but you use a "prediction that means nothing". Next year is the election, true. But does this mean that things won't be "swept under a rug"? Looking back at the Y2K election, i have my doubts. Maybe GWB has certain plans to "give relevance" to the decisions of the American People the same way he tried to "give relevance" to the UN a few months ago (either you follow me, or your decision will be ignored).
I had been ready to drop the issue until more information is available, but questions have been asked. I answered them duly, as I will always do. You may consider the answers insufficient. Then you should say so, and let it stand thus. Whether I "do some good" or not, when I do what I'm doing, is a question, each reader should decide for herself/himself.
Though I strongly disagree with most of your opinions, Linda, I'd never lower myself so much as to say "you're doing no good"...
Kindest regards
Tom
The question of the last election is your opinion.
The inspections those years were ineffective and you know it, Saddam never co-operated, in 1997 Saddam kicked the American inspectors out calling them spies. The rest withdrew. After military threats he allowed them back in but under his conditions.
Time is going to tell. I haven't made up my mind on this as it is not over, if no evidence is found of WMDs I have a lot of questions, but I am going to weigh the evidence also, the American people deserve some credit, we are not as naive as you think. Just keep the facts straight.
You decided to drop this after bringing it up April 23, I believe. Malsi questioned your logic.
The inspections those years were ineffective and you know it, Saddam never co-operated, in 1997 Saddam kicked the American inspectors out calling them spies. The rest withdrew. After military threats he allowed them back in but under his conditions.
Time is going to tell. I haven't made up my mind on this as it is not over, if no evidence is found of WMDs I have a lot of questions, but I am going to weigh the evidence also, the American people deserve some credit, we are not as naive as you think. Just keep the facts straight.
You decided to drop this after bringing it up April 23, I believe. Malsi questioned your logic.
Linda
-
John the Shorts
- Posts: 491
- Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 4:22 pm
- Location: Wales
Shwmae Malsi,
Welcome to the forum.
I agree with everyone here (Tom, Linda, et al) that it is a good thing that Saddam's regime has ended. The question for Iraq is what will, in the long term, replace it?
However democracy is not something that can be enforced. It is somethingthat can only be enacted by the people acting together. Even in the UK democracy breaks down in some parts, most notably in Northern Ireland during "The Troubles" (Incidentally is GWB going to do something about American sponsors of terrorism in this troubled land?) where man's hostility to his fellow man reached levels equivalent to those in Iraq. People hated each other because one was a Catholic and another a Protestant (never mind that they are both Christians) and even within the two communities there was a great deal of interneccine conflict - you could get shot if you were suspected of betraying your "Brother", even now when in the past 10 years things have calmed down democracy is still on hold in the province and splinter groups still provide a degree of terror.
The point is that this conflict (Bcak to Iraq now) was begun to find Weapons of Mass Destruction as GWB was growing impatient with waiting for the UN inspectors to uncover any, now that Saddam has been removed it seems that he is prepared to wait for the weapons to be uncovered or handed over - it does make me wonder what was the real point of the war WMD or SH?
Anyway as I said above Malsi welcome to the board I hope your stay here is a long one.
JTS (Democracy is coming... but when and where?)
Welcome to the forum.
I agree with everyone here (Tom, Linda, et al) that it is a good thing that Saddam's regime has ended. The question for Iraq is what will, in the long term, replace it?
However democracy is not something that can be enforced. It is somethingthat can only be enacted by the people acting together. Even in the UK democracy breaks down in some parts, most notably in Northern Ireland during "The Troubles" (Incidentally is GWB going to do something about American sponsors of terrorism in this troubled land?) where man's hostility to his fellow man reached levels equivalent to those in Iraq. People hated each other because one was a Catholic and another a Protestant (never mind that they are both Christians) and even within the two communities there was a great deal of interneccine conflict - you could get shot if you were suspected of betraying your "Brother", even now when in the past 10 years things have calmed down democracy is still on hold in the province and splinter groups still provide a degree of terror.
The point is that this conflict (Bcak to Iraq now) was begun to find Weapons of Mass Destruction as GWB was growing impatient with waiting for the UN inspectors to uncover any, now that Saddam has been removed it seems that he is prepared to wait for the weapons to be uncovered or handed over - it does make me wonder what was the real point of the war WMD or SH?
Anyway as I said above Malsi welcome to the board I hope your stay here is a long one.
JTS (Democracy is coming... but when and where?)
-
tom.d.stiller
- Posts: 1213
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2003 8:18 am
- Location: ... between the lines ...
- Contact:
The question of the last election is my opinion. I share it with many, though not with you.
The inspectors have been very effective, and you know it. Even the Bush administration admits they destroyed most of the WMD arsenal. Saddam called them spies, but didn't kick them out. They have been withdrawn. In the meantime the "old" inspectors admitted they had to report to the CIA.
Time is going to tell. I agree. The American People has all my credit, the present administration lost the bonus I initially gave.
I always keep the facts straight, but it might be easier to do so for a former freelance journalist than for most. I know a politician's lie when I see one, like I know a black limousine when it hits me in the streets.
I didn't bring it up on Apr 23. I answered to JTS's questions.
MALSI didn't question my logic. MALSI asked a question, and again I answered.
Please adhere to the facts, and refrain from personalizing differences in opinion.
Kindest regards
Tom
The inspectors have been very effective, and you know it. Even the Bush administration admits they destroyed most of the WMD arsenal. Saddam called them spies, but didn't kick them out. They have been withdrawn. In the meantime the "old" inspectors admitted they had to report to the CIA.
Time is going to tell. I agree. The American People has all my credit, the present administration lost the bonus I initially gave.
I always keep the facts straight, but it might be easier to do so for a former freelance journalist than for most. I know a politician's lie when I see one, like I know a black limousine when it hits me in the streets.
I didn't bring it up on Apr 23. I answered to JTS's questions.
MALSI didn't question my logic. MALSI asked a question, and again I answered.
Please adhere to the facts, and refrain from personalizing differences in opinion.
Kindest regards
Tom
I have a question. Perhaps the answer has only been submerged beneath all the other issues between the U.S., Iraq, and the Arab world. However, who decided that democracy should be coming to Iraq in the first place? Did someone there ask that it should happen? Was there some kind of U.N. agreement decreeing that this should be so? Are the voices rising from out of Iraq at this very moment, decrying the military presence of the United States, even after Saddam has been deposed, delusional? They are suggesting that Iraq should be run by Iraqis. And in an Islamic country, where worshippers are not guilted into worshipping, and religion and politics are veryinterwoven, and it is being suggested rather strongly that they should remain a country of Islam, whose agenda is it that they should become a democracy. I'm anxious to know that I'm wrong, if I am, in having overlooked where/how the issue of democracy in Iraq should be what's occurring there.
Thanks for anyone who might clarify this area of confusion for me.
~ Lizzytysh
Thanks for anyone who might clarify this area of confusion for me.
~ Lizzytysh
-
Andrew McGeever
- Posts: 905
- Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2002 10:02 pm
This thread, not surprisingly, has been "re-opened". The fact is that it was never closed: the correspondents, whether pro or anti-war, are too mature to think that any war (especially this one-sided demolition) is a 4-week military landslide, with a pack of cards thrown in.
My own views have been posted, and I'll no doubt give some more. In the meantime, words like "peace", "reconstruction" and "democracy" are the vocabulary of those who secured the oil-wells at the expense of hospitals, homes, museums and other lesser facilities. Oh yes, there is a grand plan : would its implementation have merely been delayed if Gore, and not Bush, had triumphed in the "hanging chad" version of "democracy"?
Andrew.
My own views have been posted, and I'll no doubt give some more. In the meantime, words like "peace", "reconstruction" and "democracy" are the vocabulary of those who secured the oil-wells at the expense of hospitals, homes, museums and other lesser facilities. Oh yes, there is a grand plan : would its implementation have merely been delayed if Gore, and not Bush, had triumphed in the "hanging chad" version of "democracy"?
Andrew.
I have thought all along it was the liberation of the Iraqi people, and this is what I have always heard from officials. I am not sure how the word democracy came about with the war in Iraq, maybe someone can tell us exactly who first said it. I hear on this board about forcing democracy down someones throat, etc. as if it were some evil plot. Wouldn't people want a democratic government? is my question.
It was Florida that had the problem counting the ballots and hanging, dimpled chads or whatever, not the whole country. Our present election system has been for hundreds of years, not always the one with the most popular votes gets in. I say you have a problem with it, work on getting it changed that is what a democracy is all about. The leader in Canada, whats his name, didn't get all the popular votes either. Is that right?
It was Florida that had the problem counting the ballots and hanging, dimpled chads or whatever, not the whole country. Our present election system has been for hundreds of years, not always the one with the most popular votes gets in. I say you have a problem with it, work on getting it changed that is what a democracy is all about. The leader in Canada, whats his name, didn't get all the popular votes either. Is that right?
Linda
Florida wasn't the only state that had vote-count problems. It was only the most highly publicized because the election hung in the balance.
The reasons for the Iraq war are multiple choice ~ all options "correct," the particular selection depending upon what point in time the question is asked....and how the master plan is going.
The voting system is set up with the popular/electoral vote method. However, who was granted the state of Florida in the electoral count was where the vote count became an issue....it was a matter of the most number of votes within the electoral not versus the electoral. So, Gore won, but "lost," and lost in both aspects.
The reasons for the Iraq war are multiple choice ~ all options "correct," the particular selection depending upon what point in time the question is asked....and how the master plan is going.
The voting system is set up with the popular/electoral vote method. However, who was granted the state of Florida in the electoral count was where the vote count became an issue....it was a matter of the most number of votes within the electoral not versus the electoral. So, Gore won, but "lost," and lost in both aspects.
Canada
Linda, we have a parliamentary democracy. The only people who vote directly for the prime minister are the few who vote in his riding. The Liberal party won a majority government.
I have read everyone's replies carefully. I believe that the Shia and Sunni are very glad and happy that Hussein is gone. Too many terrible things went on. The West did try to do something (twice War). I do not think they the people regret free Iraq. I do not think they the people could bear to wait much longer for inspections. I think if we in our own safe countries had to imagine what life would be like if we had a Hussein. A torturer. Total control over everyone's life. I think if I and my family were livng like this in Iraq I would be joyous today. And hope for better future. I do not think that inspectors would give me this better future. There is such a thing as an evil man. Evil men do not listen to inspectors. Evil men do not listen to the U.N. Evil men do not listen to many nations saying "Stop". Evil men do not listen to Leonard COhen Message Board Members 
Evil men listen to G.I. Joe. Evil men listen to British Tommys. To say "Yes, but what will happen now"? does not cancel the good news of freedom. Well, in the future there may be a Islamic republic. There may be A kingdom, a royal family. THere may be a democracy. There will NOT be a Saddam Hussein. BUt there is one thing for certain it is now POSSIBLE to have a better future.
Evil men listen to G.I. Joe. Evil men listen to British Tommys. To say "Yes, but what will happen now"? does not cancel the good news of freedom. Well, in the future there may be a Islamic republic. There may be A kingdom, a royal family. THere may be a democracy. There will NOT be a Saddam Hussein. BUt there is one thing for certain it is now POSSIBLE to have a better future.