Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: OZkansas on March 27, 2003, 10:21:24 PM
-
What will the world gain if Saddam is removed from power:
1. Iraqi will have an opportunity to taste freedom and install a government they chose.
2. The neighbors of Iraq will no longer fear invasion by Saddam.
3. This regime represents a potential source for weapons for terrorist. The people of the USA will feel safer.
4. The Iraqi people will be free from fear. Oil will be a wealth that all Iraqi people will participate.
5. One less dictator the world will have to tolerate.
6. Perhaps the new Iraq will help change the Middle East from kingdoms and theocracy to governments that the people participate as a force.
I’m sure you can think of other things that this will change.
I have to wonder why so many around the world are so afraid of these changes? It seems this minority thinks that people desire to be ruled by religious thugs and dictators! Or is it they just fear change as they think it may affect them. Or is it they are just fearful.
-
Certainly, the U.S. had some assistance, but we liberated ourselves.
Revolution is something everyone should consider while they are waiting for the U.S. to work its way down the list of oppressed peoples in need of liberation.
-
Great sandman. Hows the best way to draw a bead on you?
-
I'm sorry... I'm just not liberal enough to think that liberating the oppressed people of the world is something I want my tax dollars to be spent on.
Sorry... :)
-
me either, unless it protects my interests in the process.
-
What will the world gain if Kim Jong Il is removed from power:
1. Northern Korea will have an opportunity to taste freedom and install a government they chose.
2. The neighbors of Northern Korea will no longer fear invasion by Kim Jong Il.
3. This regime represents a potential source for weapons for terrorist. The people of the USA will feel safer.
4. The Northern Korea people will be free from fear. Plutonium will be a wealth that all Northern Korea people will participate.
5. One less dictator the world will have to tolerate.
To be continued ...
-
Aper great thinking!
I think this would be a perfect job for the brave soldiers of the former USSR. You guys put Kim in power, now clean up your mess.
-
Where my tax dollars are concerned, I'm in it for the U.S.
If I want to give money to the world, there's UNICEF. :)
-
I'm sorry... I'm just not liberal enough to think that liberating the oppressed people of the world is something I want my tax dollars to be spent on.
sandman... you feel strongly on this? declare a tax boycott. don't send 'em any mony. file every year, and send em a note on why you ain't paying.
start a movement. protest. lay in the street with a sign "NO TAX MONEY FOR LIBERATING THE WORLD!" print bumper stickers. shout it from the rooftops. take out newspaper ads. write yer congressman.
go on.. you gotta lotta work to do. get buzy. lemme know how it goes.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
start a movement. protest. lay in the street with a sign "NO TAX MONEY FOR LIBERATING THE WORLD!"
FYI, don't lay down in the street at Harvard on Tuesdays. Rumor has it there's a tan Jaguar who's owner has meetings there on that day, and he's been known to whack protestors in his way.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
sandman... you feel strongly on this? declare a tax boycott. don't send 'em any mony. file every year, and send em a note on why you ain't paying.
start a movement. protest. lay in the street with a sign "NO TAX MONEY FOR LIBERATING THE WORLD!" print bumper stickers. shout it from the rooftops. take out newspaper ads. write yer congressman.
go on.. you gotta lotta work to do. get buzy. lemme know how it goes.
There's another option... it's called a vote. My vote ain't much, but you can bet that in 2004, Bush won't be getting it from me.
-
LOL Funk!
North Korea is in no way a threat to anyone. It is simply rediculous!
-
Funked, just try to think it from the other point of view:
What will the world gain if George W Bush is removed from power:
1. All countries in the world will have an opportunity to taste freedom and install a governments they chose.
2. All countries in the world will no longer fear invasion by George W Bush.
3. This regime represents a potential source for weapons for terrorist. All countries in the world will feel safer.
4. All countries in the world will be free from fear. UN will be a wealth that all countries in the world will participate.
5. One less ... (hmm, put here something) the world will have to tolerate.
-
it's called a vote. My vote ain't much, but you can bet that in 2004, Bush won't be getting it from me.
a vote? just a vote sandman? what.. no backbone? no spunk? no conviction? no protest beyond a few swipes at a gaming bbs on the subject?
just a 'vote'?
if it makes yah feel any better, i ain't voting for him next time around either, but for other reasons. not that i voted for him this time for that matter. in the meantime, our boys are gettin hosed.. and i'm gonna back 'em up, and try to get 'em home by showing support.. not undermining their actions or their mission.
-
Aper, I tried to think of it from those points of view.
Honestly, I did.
But I kept breaking out in huge guffaws of laughter on each one.
Sorry.
-
Originally posted by -aper-
4. All countries in the world will be free from fear. UN will be a wealth that all countries in the world will participate.
I damn sure don't agree with that one. The United Nations was/is the biggest waste of time and life giving oxygen on the face of the earth. I sincerely wish that we were able to eliminate that rotten area from existence and from ever having a part in our world's history.
As for the other views you are living in a "free" country now and are entitled to your opinion of our form of government. However we did not "elect" your current leaders who have just simply changed their outward appearance/belief from the almight Communist belief and you did not elect our leadership either. Thank you for your opinion. I truly hope the former Soviet Union can really be free from oppression and a criminally run government in the not to distant future.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
a vote? just a vote sandman? what.. no backbone? no spunk? no conviction? no protest beyond a few swipes at a gaming bbs on the subject?
You're assuming that I live here or something. ;)
just a 'vote'?
Just a vote? The founding fathers considered it to be a powerful thing. It is democracy in action.
if it makes yah feel any better, i ain't voting for him next time around either, but for other reasons. not that i voted for him this time for that matter. in the meantime, our boys are gettin hosed.. and i'm gonna back 'em up, and try to get 'em home by showing support.. not undermining their actions or their mission.
Support the troops? Absolutely. I don't believe I've ever stated anything on this board to the contrary.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
Support the troops? Absolutely. I don't believe I've ever stated anything on this board to the contrary.
of course not.
instead.. you continue to point out why they should not be doing what they are doing. while supporting sotto voice the troops themselves.
i see no distiction between supporting the troops and supporting the policy.
different strokes.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
of course not.
instead.. you continue to point out why they should not be doing what they are doing. while supporting sotto voice the troops themselves.
i see no distiction between supporting the troops and supporting the policy.
different strokes.
I don't believe the soldiers have a choice. They have an oath to fulfill. I believe they are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing. You remember, I'm certain...
"... I WILL OBEY THE ORDERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE ORDERS OF THE OFFICERS APPOINTED OVER ME, ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS AND THE UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE..."
The soldiers are not permitted to question the motives of the president. I am, and I will.
-
Iraq was a free country.
US is an aggressor.
It is worth to fight against an aggressor.
-
Originally posted by OZkansas
What will the world gain if Saddam is removed from power:
1. Iraqi will have an opportunity to taste freedom and install a government they chose.
2. The neighbors of Iraq will no longer fear invasion by Saddam.
3. This regime represents a potential source for weapons for terrorist. The people of the USA will feel safer.
4. The Iraqi people will be free from fear. Oil will be a wealth that all Iraqi people will participate.
5. One less dictator the world will have to tolerate.
6. Perhaps the new Iraq will help change the Middle East from kingdoms and theocracy to governments that the people participate as a force.
I’m sure you can think of other things that this will change.
I have to wonder why so many around the world are so afraid of these changes? It seems this minority thinks that people desire to be ruled by religious thugs and dictators! Or is it they just fear change as they think it may affect them. Or is it they are just fearful.
ROTFL !!!!
You are really a victim of the FOX-propaganda shows.
That lack of knowledge about the situation in the Middle East of Iraq has brought you the actual military situation. No people, who are happy to be freed and celebrating the liberators.
They hate Saddam - right - but they also hate americans and the UK (which was their former colonial power).
About your unrealistic points:
1. Iraq will NOT get a democracy. If the US will allow this after the victory the shiite majority will elect their highest leader Ajatollah Hakim, who lives in iranian exile and you have created a second Islamic Republic in the region.
Also the people will get the same "freedom" like the afghans got after the "victory" there.
2. Right - instead they have to fear operations from US-intelligence supported terrorism of so called freedom fighters which will operate from iraqui territory.
Just watch Iran for example.
In the last decade they have made many reforms against the fundementalistic mullahs. They even elected a prime minister against the will of the mullahs.
Then Bush made his stupid "Iran is part of the axis of evil speach" and starts his military policy.
Really a good way to raise fear of people against americans. Especially if they see day by day the pictured of killed and wounded "collateral damage" in Iraq because of allied surgical air strikes.
For them Bush is like a christian religious fanatic inquisitor from the middle-age who wants to free their soules by burning them.
3. The US people will feel safer until they realise that they became more isolated and hated in the world because of Bush idiotic war policy.
4. The Iraqui people will not be free of fear. There will be 100Thousands of dead iraquis after the "victory", when the civil war between kurds, shiites, sunnites and the factions within breaks out.
And the oil will be stolen by the victors.
5. And another dictator will be installed by the victors as a puppet - like in Afghanistan. The CIA-supported "General" Dostum who is a war criminal and who has killed thousands of POW´s in barbaric ways has become 2nd defense minister of the afghan government because of US intervention.
This man has a good chance to become the next CIA-produced Frankenstein-Monster like Osama or Saddam before.
The USA has to install a sunnite leader if they want to control Iraq after a "victory". This is minority faction of Iraq which has supressed the kurds and shiites since 1921. And the candidates are really funny: x-saddam generals who have committed brutal crimes in the Iran-Iraq war. There will be just a replacement of one dictator with another.
6. LOL LOL LOL
In Iraq there are the most holy places of the shiites. The shiite people there are even more religious fanatics than in Iran.
When their Ajatollah gives them an order they fullfill this without asking any questions.
And the hate against the foreign and heretic invaders is raising day by day.
Also the kurds will take their chance to get independance - and they will be manipulated again by foreign nations to fight against each other. Iran, Turkey, Syria, the "victory nations" - all have "their" kurdish puppet clans and made arrangements to lead them to a new victory.
There will be no peace in Iraq for a very long time.
Not because the USA and GB cant win the war. They will do so - no dounbt.
But they have no chance to win the peace.
Welcome to reality...
-
Originally posted by -aper-
Funked, just try to think it from the other point of view:
What will the world gain if George W Bush is removed from power:
1. All countries in the world will have an opportunity to taste freedom and install a governments they chose.
2. All countries in the world will no longer fear invasion by George W Bush.
3. This regime represents a potential source for weapons for terrorist. All countries in the world will feel safer.
4. All countries in the world will be free from fear. UN will be a wealth that all countries in the world will participate.
5. One less ... (hmm, put here something) the world will have to tolerate.
All but #1 are false.
-
Iraqi people fight for freedom now.
Maybe bodybags will teach US a lesson.
-
Pathetic...
Tell me something you jebena pizda was the USA conducting such an illegal anti freedom war when the helped up plan the 1995 offensive and bombed serb positions in bosnia, did they need body bags to tech them lessons then?
-
I see we got into personal attacks. Don't go that low, please.
-
Sorry Hristo... But man you have gone beyond all reason, please reconsider and rethink your idea that the iraqi people consider rule by saddam hussein and his cadre to be freedom.
Then maybe we can talk more reasonably.
-
Originally posted by Hristo
Iraqi people fight for freedom now.
Maybe bodybags will teach US a lesson.
Personell attacks?
You're an ass.
We need just one body bag, labled HR..............
nvrmnd.
-
Harry Reasoner? I thought he retired in `91? OMG ..... was he embedded?
-
1. Iraqi will have an opportunity to taste freedom and install a government they chose.
2. The neighbors of Iraq will no longer fear invasion by Saddam.
3. This regime represents a potential source for weapons for terrorist. The people of the USA will feel safer.
4. The Iraqi people will be free from fear. Oil will be a wealth that all Iraqi people will participate.
5. One less dictator the world will have to tolerate.
6. Perhaps the new Iraq will help change the Middle East from kingdoms and theocracy to governments that the people participate as a force.
1. Because of the situation in Iraq, there can't be a government that's supported by every part of the nation. The most likely scenario is that Iraq will have a civil war after Saddam dies.
2. The neighbours of Iraq are looking for opportunities to gain from the assault. According to nbc news Iran already has thousands of infiltrators in the western part of Iraq. Military analysts say there's a fair risk coalition troops will be caught in the middle with Iran, Iraq and Turks all trying to grab land / oilfields.
3. The attack in itself works as an ad campaign in all islamic countries. They're using it for thier propaganda and you're effectively recruiting new members for the Al-khaeda. They're increasing thier attacks because of this, not ending them. Make no mistake.
4. The history of the region shows that democratic elections will lead into an islamic fundamentalist regime (just look at Turkey just recently.) While they're elected democratically, they usually lead into extreme religious regulation, lack of human rights and oppression of the people who won't comply with the rules.
5. Read above, the leader of the new regime will be or be replaced with another dictator who will continue in Saddams footpaths. This is common also with fundamentalist regimes.
6. Perhaps Iraq will be all they promised it will be. If the new regime fails, Iraq will become again your problem number one with
a) Islamic fundamentalist regime supporting Al khaeda
b) A chaotic society, corruption which allows again terrorist groups to operate freely on the area
c) A possible war with the neighbouring countries, or even worse a civil war which will destabilize the whole area for years.
But they don't talk about this stuff on Fox do they?
The shock and awe campaign left the coalition in shock and awe when they realized Iraqis didn't cave in. They chose to fight.
Your troops are not welcomed as liberators, and that's exactly the only thing that would have made the operation a success. It has already failed its target.
-
The actual target is to find and destroy any and all WMD.
The regime change has to happen for that to happen. Well, has too since SH would not willingly comply with the terms of the GW1 ceasefire.
It's just a bit early yet to decide if the Iraqis will be glad to be rid of him. Clearly his fedayeen are still capable of killing those who show enthusiasm for regime change at the present.
-
Originally posted by OZkansas
What will the world gain if Saddam is removed from power:
> 1. Iraqi will have an opportunity to taste freedom
> and install a government they chose.
This is not a benefit to the world only the Iraqi people. The Iraqi people already have the government that they chose. If the majority of Iraqis wanted something different, they would have revolted just as the people of the USSR, East Germany, Poland, and Iran revolted against their oppressive totalitarian governments. (Of course Iran replaced it with another oppressive gov't in our opinion, but it is still a gov't that they freely chose).
> 2. The neighbors of Iraq will no longer fear
> invasion by Saddam.
The neighbors of Iraq have not feared invasion by Saddam for the 12 years since the end of the 1st Gulf War. If Iraqs neighbors truly feared Saddam they would all be with us in this fight. Instead: Syria and Jordan (both who supported the US in the 1st Gulf War) have denounced this invasion; Turkey won't let us use their border to enter Iraq (which they did in the 1st Gulf War); more than 90% of the Saudi people are against the war; only Kuwait stands with us (but some Kuwaitis have attack our troops which shows they don't all love us like they did when we rescued their country in '91). And then there is Iran...do you really care if Iraq and Iran have another war? I don't.
> 3. This regime represents a potential source
> for weapons for terrorist. The people of the
> USA will feel safer.
Trust is also a major issue for Saddam. There is no terrorist group that he could trust enough to be sure that the weapons that he would supply them would only be used against the US and not turned back against him. The concept of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is not valid when you have an individual who is so paranoid for his safety that he sleeps in a different bed every night and employs several body doubles.
Further, the enemy of my enemy is not my friend if I consider him my enemy also. Middle East experts agree (including our own CIA) that UBL and Al Qaeda are enemies of Saddam. The Al Qaeda training camps in Kurdish controlled northern Iraq were there to train Kurds how to fight against Saddam, not fight for him.
I for one (and there are many others) feel less safe because of this action. This invasion is the best recruiting drive that Al Qaeda has ever had...thank you Mr. Bush.[/i]
> 4. The Iraqi people will be free from fear.
> Oil will be a wealth that all Iraqi people will participate.
Again, that is only a benefit for the Iraqi people. I really could not care less about them if they don't have the balls to start a revolution without our help.
> 5. One less dictator the world will have to tolerate.
The only one I agree with. But I think it is damn arrogant of us to then become the judge of other world leaders and become the instrument of their removal if we determine that they are not so nice a guy. There are too many out there...some of whom we currently call friend (such as the leader of Pakistan).
> 6. Perhaps the new Iraq will help change the
> Middle East from kingdoms and theocracy to
> governments that the people participate as a force.
Not likely. The Kurds are primarily Wahabbi, which is the same Islamic sect that UBL belongs to. The southern Iraqis share their Shi'a beliefs with Iranians...no country comprised of majority Shi'ites carved from former Iraq would be autonomous from Iran IMHO.
> I have to wonder why so many around the world
> are so afraid of these changes?
I think it is clear that this invasion destabilizes the region, increases the likelihood for more frequent terrorist attacks against the US, has destabilized oil prices and has destroyed the goodwill the US had after 9/11. Seems like pretty good reasons to be afraid of Bush and his policies.
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
> The Iraqi people already have the government that they chose. If the majority of Iraqis wanted something different, they would have revolted just as the people of the USSR, East Germany, Poland, and Iran revolted against their oppressive totalitarian governments.
Ding!
Time out. Kurds estimate ~180,000 Kurds lost to the Anfal genocide used to stop their revolt. Until the establishment of the Northern no-fly zone, they were basically being attacked.
Shiites in the South have a similar story.
They revolted.. they lost.
-
It might be difficult to understand the reality in countries like that if you've born in a western democracy.
-
As it might be hard to understand the realities of western democracy if you are born in "countries like that".
-
I admit, it would be hard for me to understand my tongue being ripped out if I said I think Bush should have waited for UN Sanction.
Or my Dad being fed into a shredder in front of me because he said he thought we ought to have at least two candidates to vote for in the Presidential election instead of just one.
Of my son being tortured by the government because his football team lost a game.
I admit I have a hard time understanding stuff like that.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Time out. Kurds estimate ~180,000 Kurds lost to the Anfal genocide used to stop their revolt. Until the establishment of the Northern no-fly zone, they were basically being attacked.
Shiites in the South have a similar story.
They revolted.. they lost.
DING...guess that was not the majority then, huh?
Kurds make up 15% of Iraq's 22million people. The Iraqi Shi'ites in the central and north, which is roughly half of the Iraqi population, evidently didn't rise up like their southern brothers.
-
Too funny.
Are you going to make the case that the Baath party... the folks with the guns and heavy weapons.... are the majority population?
Or are you going to admit that the guys with the guns can pretty much ignore the majority that doesn't have any guns?
The Shiites in the south did not rebel after the '91 Gulf War? Do yourself a favor and put "1991 shiite revolt iraq" into a search engine and see what you get.
Here's a hint from CBS:
March 2, 1991
Shiite Muslims revolt against Saddam in southern Iraq. Later, they are joined by Kurds in the north. Both rebellions are savagely crushed after a month of fighting.
Educate yourself.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Are you going to make the case that the Baath party... the folks with the guns and heavy weapons.... are the majority population?
Toad,
Where did I say that the Ba'ath Party was the majority? Please quote it.
Who had the guns and heavy weapons in the USSR? Are they in power today?
Who had the guns and heavy weapons in Communist Poland? Are they in power today?
Who had the guns and heavy weapons in East Germany? Are they in power today?
Who had the guns and heavy weapons in Romaina? Is he in power today?
Who had the guns and heavy weapons in Iran 25 years ago? Is he in power today?
If 20 million Iraqis decided to take out the 2 million in the Ba'ath Party and replace them with another group they could do it. If they want Saddam out of there baddly enough, then they can get rid of him.
I am not so arrogant to think that I should make that decision for them like I would for little children. They are adults and they can choose who they want as their leader.
-
One step at a time, speedy.
Defend this one:
crow:
The Iraqi Shi'ites in the central and north, which is roughly half of the Iraqi population, evidently didn't rise up like their southern brothers
Are you standing by this?
Be happy to address the rest after you answer that.
-
YEs
Crow..
answer this one to please
If the majority of Iraqis wanted something different, they would have revolted just as the people of the USSR, East Germany, Poland, and Iran revolted against their oppressive totalitarian governments.
So East Germany freed them selves??? Please explain how they did this.
And IRAQ is a free country...strange..Only 1 guy can run for president...How the hell can anyone say thats free??
-
Originally posted by Toad
One step at a time, speedy.
Are you standing by this?
Be happy to address the rest after you answer that.
Yup...here's how:
The southern governances of Iraq and their populations from the Iraqi census nearest to 1991, which was in 1987, are: (http://memory.loc.gov/frd/cs/iraq/iq_appen.html)
An Najef 723,000
Al Muthanna 313,000
Al Basrah 872,000
Dhi Qar 918,000
Maysan 500,000
Which totals 3,326,000 folks. The '87 census indicated that Iraq had 16.3 million. That means only 20% of the population is in southern Iraq if those data remained constant (I'll correct for population shift below).
It is estimated that 60% of Iraq is Shi'a. (http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/iz.html)Based on '87 figures that means that 9.8 million would have been Shi'a. If *all* the people in the southern governances were Shi'a that would mean that 6.5 million Shi'ites live other than in the south. What does that mean? It means that 66% of the Shi'ites didn't live in the south.
Now, has this has actually changed...yes, but only to make it worse for the southern Shi'ites. There has not been another census since '87, however observers have indicated that there has been a population shift to the cities so that now Baghdad, which has the largest concentration of people, has a Shi'a majority.(http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/islam/countries/bl_IraqIslamRelations.htm) Observers also indicate that the population of the south's largest city, Basra declined between '77 to '87 from 800,000 to 400,000. (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+iq0030) ) So, by the early '90s the actual % of Shi'ites in the south was probably even less than the % I used.
You got data to dispute this Sparky??
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
So East Germany freed them selves??? Please explain how they did this.
Well, perhaps I am mistaken...did I miss where someone invaded East Germany and tore down the Berlin Wall for them?
And IRAQ is a free country...strange..Only 1 guy can run for president...How the hell can anyone say thats free??
Was that in response to something I wrote?? I don't recall writing anything that said that Iraq was a free country. In fact I think I said something that indicated that the people of Iraq could revolt and overthrow a dictator.
-
no what do you mean by this?
Crow says
The Iraqi people already have the government that they chose.
"They Chose"...yes..ooooh honey who are you voting for today..well..lets see the ballot...
1) Soddom
2)Soddom
wow..Crow..they have so many choices!!!
I guess thats why Soddom got 99% of the last "election" !
lol
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by BGBMAW
So East Germany freed them selves??? Please explain how they did this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crow says....
Well, perhaps I am mistaken...did I miss where someone invaded East Germany and tore down the Berlin Wall for them?
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lmfao..Crow..u answer a question with a question...
Again..EXplain to me how the East Germans and the rest of these east block countries free'd themselves?
This is my answer...
And yes..the Wetsern Nations put pressure on the Gov...Arms race..sanctions ect..this made there crappy as$ Communists/Socliast regime fold...sure in the hell wasnt becuase the East Germans revolted..and it took 50 + years
Ohh ok..so what you are saying. is..East Germans Physicaly tore the wall down so that means they actually collapsed the Russina rule over the country/?? hahaha..if thats what you mean u are right..lololol
One more Crow quote..
they would have revolted just as the people of the USSR, East Germany, Poland, and Iran revolted against their oppressive totalitarian governments.
I never saw this revolt...must have been quik..I beleive it was more of an implosion then revolt..They proved there style of government is a hunk of crap..
-
You're still dancing faster than the music.
We'll get to population if you wish.
Are you saying there was no Shiite revolt in '91?
Let's get that clear, then address your "points".
Thx.
-
Ronald Reagan: Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.
Gorbachev: Yes, sir.
Originally posted by crowMAW
Well, perhaps I am mistaken...did I miss where someone invaded East Germany and tore down the Berlin Wall for them?
-
crowMaw,
1) The leaders of Poland, USSR, East Germany, Romania, did not have the stomach to be butchers of their own people to enforce their totalitarian regimes. When Stalin was in power, he did. But the leaders were no longer sadistic maniacs like Stalin and Saddam.
Saddam very much has the will and the means to slaughter people who would dissent and try to change the government.
2) The leaders of these communist countries had also come to realize that communism was not going to hang the last capitalist with his own rope. They realized capitalism was leaving them in the dust, and they were ready for a change.
Saddam will never be ready for a change.
A comparison of the communist countries in their last days with the regime of Saddam is not valid. They are totally different circumstances.
-
MOSQ: 1) The leaders of Poland, USSR, East Germany, Romania, did not have the stomach to be butchers of their own people to enforce their totalitarian regimes. When Stalin was in power, he did. But the leaders were no longer sadistic maniacs like Stalin and Saddam.
And the reason for that was that Stalin left a generation of rulers much less competent than his one - Khrushevm Molotove, etc.
And the incompetent bunch that retired Khrushev - or ratehr two bunches - selected as a compromise teh mist incompetent and non-threatening Brezhnev as a figurehead, etc. Without real enemy mobilise them and having dead society, vs. dynamic market-based entrepreneural one, such states go corrupt, lax and crumble - the more disparate parts in threir empire, the faster. Eastern block, periphery of teh empire started getting the "freedom" rot even earlier - Poland, Hungary, etc.
Saddam very much has the will and the means to slaughter people who would dissent and try to change the government.
But he would have died sooner or later. And teh regime would have changed - possibly with way fewer civilian casualties and certainly no hostility incured by americans.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
But he would have died sooner or later. And teh regime would have changed - possibly with way fewer civilian casualties and certainly no hostility incured by americans.
miko
Earth to miko, come in miko! It's time to return to reality.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
[b
Saddam very much has the will and the means to slaughter people who would dissent and try to change the government.
But he would have died sooner or later. And teh regime would have changed - possibly with way fewer civilian casualties and certainly no hostility incured by americans.
miko
I suppose this worked the same way for stalin in the ussr. I can see how that logic works. Lets see then, north korea should have had a regime change and all oppressive conditions were removed when kim the first kicked the bucket and of course things changed dramatically when mao died in china. Yep the world really changed for folks in those countries when their kindly old dictator died............
Ya know I don't think your logic follows, but that is no surprise.
-
miko2d,
With fewer civilian casualties ? ! ?
How many civilians has Saddam killed already ? Between the Kurds, Shiites, Iranians ? 400,000 Iraqi kids die each year of malnutrition because Saddam keeps the food for oil money we send Iraq. He lives in gilded while the children starve.
The number of civilians killed by coalition forces will be miniscule in comparison.
The man is evil. His sons are evil. In your scenario Saddam dies, but who seizes control ? His Son ! And his Son is even more sadistic than Saddam !
So then we would have Saddam's son with Weapons of Mass Destruction.
We have no choice but to finish the Gulf War, and replace Saddam, his sons, and the Baath party.
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
no what do you mean by this?
Crow says
"They Chose"
wow..Crow..they have so many choices!!!
[/b]
Jeez BiGB...I know you aint that dense! What I mean by "they choose" does not mean by elections and voting. They choose by inaction. They refuse to overthrow Saddam, therefore they choose to live with him.
Lmfao..Crow..u answer a question with a question...
Again..EXplain to me how the East Germans and the rest of these east block countries free'd themselves?
[/b]
Need a history lesson, eh BiGB? OK...you ready for a drink from the firehose?
East Germany: The people of the GDR had been getting info about glasnost and perestroika which began around 1989. Although the GDR leadership tried to deny the reality of these developments and franticly attempted to block the news coming out of the Soviet Union by preventing the distribution of Russian newsmagazines only strengthened growing protest within the population.
In Berlin, on October 7, the GDR leadership celebrated the fortieth anniversary of the foundation of the East German state. In his address, Honecker sharply condemned the FRG for interfering in the GDR's internal affairs and for encouraging protesters. Still convinced of his mission to secure the survival of the GDR as a state, he proclaimed: "Socialism will be halted in its course neither by ox, nor ass."
Two days later 70,000 protesters shouting "We are the people" demonstrated in Leipzig. When the police took no action during these historic hours of October 9, 1989, it became clear to everyone that the days of the GDR were numbered. After the crowds in Leipzig reached over 100,000 protesters on October 16, the Central Committee of the SED--previously kept in the background by Honecker and his comrades in the party leadership--took control. Honecker resigned from his offices as head of state and party leader on October 18.
Egon Krenz, longtime member of the Politburo and FDJ chairman, became Honecker's successor as general secretary of the SED. On October 24, Krenz also assumed the chairmanship of the Council of State. On his orders, all police actions against demonstrators were discontinued. On November 4, the largest demonstration in GDR history took place, with over 1 million people in East Berlin demanding democracy and free elections. Confronted with this wave of popular opposition, the GDR government, under Prime Minister Willi Stoph, resigned on November 7. The Politburo followed suit on November 8. Finally, on the evening of November 9, Politburo member Günter Schabowski announced the opening of the border crossings into the FRG.
Ohh ok..so what you are saying. is..East Germans Physicaly tore the wall down so that means they actually collapsed the Russina rule over the country/?? hahaha..if thats what you mean u are right..lololol[/b]
My respect for your intelligence is waining, bud. If the people of the GDR had sat on their tulips in '89 and did nothing about Honecker from then until now, they would still be a communist country.
I do agree that losing the Cold War did have something to do with speeding their demise. But more so, I belive that communism is doomed idealogically from the start...it would have been a matter of time even without the Cold War before the people of those countries tossed their respective Politburos out on their butts.
But the point is...the USA did not march into Berlin and liberate the East Germans for their own good. The East Germans tossed their leaders out on their own.
I never saw this revolt...must have been quik..I beleive it was more of an implosion then revolt..They proved there style of government is a hunk of crap.. [/B]
You have to not be blind in order to see BigB. Which revolt you want to know about? We already did East Germany. How about USSR...August 1991, the last gasp of the old Soviet Union. Hardliners attempted to sieze control of the government away from Gorbechev. A group calling itself the State Emergency Committee attempted to seize power in Moscow. The group announced that Gorbachev was ill and had been relieved of his state post as president. Soviet Union vice president Gennadiy Yanayev was named acting president. The committee's eight members included KGB chairman Vladimir Kryuchkov, Internal Affairs Minister Pugo, Defense Minister Dmitriy Yazov, and Prime Minister Pavlov, all of whom had risen to their posts under Gorbachev.
Large public demonstrations against the coup leaders took place in Moscow and Leningrad, and divided loyalties in the defense and security establishments prevented the armed forces from crushing the resistance that Yeltsin led from Russia's parliament building. I watched that on CNN...Yeltsen got up on top of a tank whos commander was loyal to the resistance movement and spoke to a huge crowd in Red Square. On August 21, the coup collapsed, and Gorbachev returned to Moscow.
Once back in Moscow, Gorbachev acted as if he were oblivious to the changes that had occurred in the preceding three days. As he returned to power, Gorbachev promised to purge conservatives from the CPSU. He resigned as general secretary but remained president of the Soviet Union. The coup's failure brought a series of collapses of all-union institutions. Yeltsin took control of the central broadcasting company and key economic ministries and agencies, and in November he banned the CPSU and the Russian Communist Party.
By December 1991, all of the former Soviet republics had declared independence.
I can go on...would you like to hear about Romania? In that one the leader of the country was exicuted along with his wife by the people who revolted. Just let me know and I'll be glad to school you some more.
XOXOX as always.
;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Are you saying there was no Shiite revolt in '91?
Ah...I see...you have a reading comprehension problem. This is what I said:
The Iraqi Shi'ites in the central and north, which is roughly half of the Iraqi population, evidently didn't rise up like their southern brothers.
Lets simplyfy this to:
The Iraqi Shi'ites in the central and north evidently didn't rise up like their southern brothers.
What does this mean?
"...didn't rise up like their southern brothers" means that the southern Shi'ites rose up. The word "evidently" indicates that the sentance proposes that the central and northern Shi'ites did not.
So to answer your question simply...yes, I am aware that the southern Iraqi Shi'ites revolted, which is evident by my quoted sentance.
-
Originally posted by MOSQ
1) The leaders of Poland, USSR, East Germany, Romania, did not have the stomach to be butchers of their own people to enforce their totalitarian regimes.
[/b]
You have to be kidding me...Ceausescu and the Securitate were not willing to butcher their own Romanian people? ROTFLOL!
b2) The leaders of these communist countries had also come to realize that communism was not going to hang the last capitalist with his own rope. They realized capitalism was leaving them in the dust, and they were ready for a change.
So that is why there was a hardline coup in the USSR in 1991. Uh-huh...okay. And when GDR Chairman Honecker said, "Socialism will be halted in its course neither by ox, nor ass," two days before the East Geraman people revolted he was just pulling their leg. Riiiiiight. And I bet you are right that Ceausescu was ready for a change when the Romanian revolutionaries lined him up against a wall and shot him on public TV. Those leaders sure were ready for a change alright.
A comparison of the communist countries in their last days with the regime of Saddam is not valid. They are totally different circumstances. [/B]
Lets see...Saddam is a socialist totalitarian dictator...hmmm, maybe he wasn't like any of the other socialist totalitarian dictators of the late '80s and early '90s. I guess they were sweethearts and that is why their people overthrew them...yeah, that makes sense.
-
heheh ok..You do agree Communism wont work..so a revoklt wasnt really needed?
But..i do beleive western powers had a good deal of work involved with rallying /supporting revolt/spying in east germany..these guys wer not on there own..
And Again..you admitted ..the collapse of the USSr was the MAIN reason gthe rest fell..
I meanif they still had there money/powere they could of killed all who disagreed..liek they did for so many decades right?
Seemed liek you are saying that Iraq people have the power to over throw there gov ' currenlty...I woudl say..Soddom gov has too many wepaons to havce a succes ful revolt..u agree?
ya ya, you schooled me..lolo
Crow says
I do agree that losing the Cold War did have something to do with speeding their demise.
My point is u are comparing Iraq with Russai and the eastern block.
I really think they are completyly different situations..
BiGB
of course
xoxo
-
Yeah, I'm illiterate, that's it.
Now then, the Shiites rebel in the South, the Kurds revolt as well. The revolt, bloody and violent in both the North and the South continues for about a month. Both the Kurds and the Southern Shiites are "brutally suppressed".
All estimates of Shiite deaths in this revolt start at "tens of thousands" and run as high as sixty thousand.
In the North, the Kurds, after suffering between 100,000 and 180,000 deaths in the Anfal at the hands of Saddam's brother-in-law "Chemical Ali" are initially successful in driving out Saddam's Sunni troops. However, within a week Saddam's loyal forces return and tens of thousands of Kurds die and an estimated million or more flee to Turkey and Iran. However, the UN establishes a no-fly zone and a de-facto independent Kurdistan is born... albeit with continual US/UK air support and oversight. So perhaps a partially successful revolt for the Kurds.
Now, your contention is if the Iraqi really wanted Saddam out, they could do it with numbers, just like East Germany or Russia.
Seems you overlook one key difference in your comparisons.
Saddam has his loyal, primarily Sunni Republican Guard. Obviously, they are not ihibited by the thought of killing their fellow countrymen. Witness the Anfal with 100K+ dead Kurds, the Shiite revolt with 60K dead Shias and more thousands of dead Kurds in the '01 revolt.
What would have been the result in East Germany if their had been an ethnic or religious minority loyal to the government but different from the "majority" of the common people that was not only willing but eager to kill dissidents? Suppose the 70K demonstrators in Leipzig had been decimated by these "house guard" troops?
There's the difference. Saddam has his loyal Sunni troops; they've held power as a minority by the sword for a long time and aren't afraid to use it.
Your contention that the Iraqis could just rise up and overthrow him like the East Germans tossed of the yoke of Communism loses it's credibility for that reason.
The revolutions you describe basically succeeded because there were no "loyal government troops" willing to slaughter tens of thousands of their fellow countrymen protestors/revolutionaries.
In Iraq, that has PROVEN not to be the case.
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
Seemed liek you are saying that Iraq people have the power to over throw there gov ' currenlty...I woudl say..Soddom gov has too many wepaons to havce a succes ful revolt..u agree?
Toad, my response to this also goes for your contention that the Iraqi people cannot overthow Saddam.
I'll give you two examples from the past 25 years where the people from each country rose up and took down an extremely powerful, ruthless, dictator. Dictators who had all the guns and the weapons. Dictators who had armies and secret police loyal to them. Dictators who had "loyal government troops willing to slaughter tens of thousands of their fellow countrymen protestors/revolutionaries." Dictators equivalent to Saddam.
Iran in 1979 and Romania in 1989. If you both really want me to give you history lessons about those two revolutions I will. But regardless, I only need to show that it has been done in the past to validate my argument and invalidate yours.
Originally posted by Toad
Yeah, I'm illiterate, that's it.
[/b]
You must be...you sure didn't read the links I gave you. If you had, you would have found out that Shi'ites make up a large portion of Saddam's "loyal troops". Of the top Iraqi leaders who in early 1988 sat with Saddam on the Revolutionary Command Council--Iraq's highest governing body-- three were Arab Shias, three were Arab Sunnis, one was an Arab Christian, and one a Kurd. On the Regional Command Council--the ruling body of the Ba'ath Party--Shi'ites actually predominated. During the war with Iran, a number of Shi'ite officers were promoted to corps commanders. The general who turned back the initial Iranian invasions of Iraq in 1982 was Shi'ite. Moreover, three quarters of the military's lower ranks are Shi'ites.
-
What invalidates your comparison is that governmental forces in both of your examples remained essentially benign. They did not "pull the trigger" on their countrymen either because they weren't ordered to do so or because they refused such orders. Point is, they did not slaughter their countrymen, which I'm sure you will admit they had the capability to do.
Had they killed 60,000 protesters the results would have undoubtedly been much different and it's quite possible, likely even, that those revolts would totally fail. The difference is in the absence of forces that were willing to do that for their leader.
In short, I don't think you can call your examples a valid comparison in the least.
Now, had East Germany or Rumania undergone a month of vicious all out warfare, government vs protesters, and the protesters emerged victorious, you might have something. But that didn't happen.
Further, the Kurds, after being initially driven out were able to eventually establish an area now referred to as "Independent Kurdistan" by some. Would seem to validate your hypothesis that the Iraqis could do it by themselves, correct?
However, this was only accomplished AFTER the establishment of the Northern no-fly zone by the US/UK (and France initially) at a cost to the Allies of approximately $1 billion/year. Without the no-fly zone, no independent Kurdistan. Seems pretty clear that they cannot do it themselves.
-
Oh, and if your point is that a revolution cannot be successful until the military allows it to happen (given the absence of external forces), I'd agree. ;)
-
Crow..didnt we help a great deal in Iran?
-
Completely idiotic.
therefore they choose to live with him.
IF they Choose anything ELSE, or speak for that matter about ANYTHING ELSE, they are killed.
Wake the phuck up moron, the people DO NOT have A CHOICE, that is why they LIVE WITH HIM.
Lets say I take a Gun to you and your family, in a room, and say,.. Hey Give me your money. ARE You GOING TO NOT give me your money and have me kill you AND your family? Jesus, I hope you say that you will give me the money.
THAT Would be your choice.. NONE.. if you choose LIFE moron.
They "CHOOSE" to "Live with saddam" because that is the ONLY option aside from death.
:rolleyes: :mad:
-
Originally posted by OZkansas
This regime represents a potential source for weapons for terrorist. The people of the USA will feel safer.
They are not the only people! i live just outside London, family work there - if there is a terrorist attack with bio/chem/nuke weapons we are screwed
-
Originally posted by Toad
What invalidates your comparison is that governmental forces in both of your examples remained essentially benign. They did not "pull the trigger" on their countrymen either because they weren't ordered to do so or because they refused such orders
You are either very uneducated or refuse to educate yourself about issues that are contrary what you "believe" to be true. I will educate you on one example (I only need to show one example to invalidate your argument that it cannot be done): Romania's December 1989 Revolution.
Some background on Nicolai Ceausescu (in case you don't know how to pronounce it: say "chow - chess - que"): His people nicknamed him "Dracula II" because of his ruthless tactics in subjugating his people using the dreaded Securitate, or secret police. Like Saddam, he had a minority problem in the north west region of his country...he called it the Hungarian Problem. Like Saddam he figured he needed to get rid of these people. The method he chose was radiation. Every Hungarian minority that was ever arrested or brought in for questioning (including women and children) were bombarded with low level radiation in a process called "Radu". The effect was a very slow death from cancer, which went untreated by what little Romanian healthcare system existed. The west learned of this as it was noticed that every Hungarian deported from Romania during Ceausescu's reign died of cancer. Most Romanians suspected the practice existed, but of course it was never made public. Real nice guy. If you want to learn about some more of his atrocities get a book called "Red Horizons" by a former leader in the Securitate named Ion Pacepa...it will leave you physically ill.
Like Saddam, Ceausescu had his version of the Republican Guard, called the Worker's Guards or sometimes by it's old Soviet name, the Patriotic Guards. In 1989, it numbered close to 250,000, which augmented another 500,000 of regular troops. On top of these troops the Securitate had 15,000 agents and 20,000 special Security Troops whose sole purpose was to put down demonstrations. In 1987 he used the troops to forcefully put down a "riot" of 30,000 in the city of Brasov.
The revolution started unexpectedly. I will compress what happened over the several days of the revolution. A priest named Laszlo Tokes was viewed as a dissident by the local Party officials in Timisoara. He preached tolerance and freedom to his congregation. Tokes was ordered to leave his church and take a post in a very small village where he could do less harm. He refused. As a result an order was issued for his arrest as well as his family. He was a Hungarian which meant certain death for his entire family. His congregation, realizing that Tokes' arrest meant his death, protested by guarding the church. The protest spread until over 1000 demonstrators were camped out. The Party officials at first capitulated, but the crowd had turned from protesting Tokes' arrest warrant to a crowd chanting "FREEDOM".
The Securitate was called in and disbursed the crowd using batons and shovels. But the next day several thousand protestors began marching. Outraged Ceausescu called a meeting of the Political Executive Committee and screamed at the Interior and Defense Ministers for their inability to quell the growing protest. "Why didn't they shoot?", he demanded to know. He then ordered the military to move in and fire on the demonstrators. The protest had spread to most of the city as tanks and infantry moved in to carry out Ceausescu's order. Many soldiers did refuse to fire into the crowds, then estimated at nearly 50,000, and were executed by their commanders on the spot. Tanks and artillery fired into the center of town while infantry shot those at the periphery.
In the end no accurate casualty count is known. Soviet reporters wrote later that they had witnessed hundreds of bodies laying in the streets and watched bodies being dumped into the river or cremated in mass graves. The hospitals of the region were overflowing with the wounded.
The next day, the protest continued. A general strike was called in the region. Later, thousands more protestors flooded the streets and charged the army pushing them out of the city. Three days later, the dissident leaders addressed the city from an opera house bombed by artillery rounds and declared Timisoara a free city.
As news leaked out, unrest spread to Bucharest. Riots began in the capital and continued despite the military being called in to stop the revolt. Ceausescu attempted to turn the revolt by staging a forced pro-Ceausescu demonstration. But the demonstrators threw down their pro-Ceausescu signs and began chanting "Death to Ceausescu". The Securitate guarding the mob were overrun and were stripped of their weapons.
At this point several military brigades in Bucharest switched sides and started to move towards the Committee building along with the protestors. Ceausescu, fearing for his life, boarded a helicopter and attempted to escape. His helicopter ran out of fuel in the countryside and he was forced to hide. The dissidents began a hunt for him and all the while had running battles with the Securitate, Security Troops and loyal Worker's Guards. Terrorist type strikes by loyal forces continued for months even after the revolution "ended". Ceausescu was eventually found, tried and executed on Christmas day...a banned holiday under his dictatorship. The entire revolution started and ended in December 1989.
Did some of the military switch allegiances...yes, but not until it was obvious that Ceausescu was finished.
If 20 million Iraqis decide that it is time for Saddam to go...he would be gone. BTW, it would be impossible for Saddam to insure the complete loyalty of all of his troops. Saddam uses a conscripted army...all young men must serve at some point, which means if there is some % of the population that wants Saddam out, close to that same % exists in the army.
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
Crow..didnt we help a great deal in Iran?
Did we and the British help prop up the Shah...yes. Amaco and BP had the largest oil consessions in Iran prior to the revolution.
-
Originally posted by Hristo
Iraqi people fight for freedom now.
Maybe bodybags will teach US a lesson.
Maybe I punch you ion the nose teach you one too maggot.
-
Originally posted by JoeSmoe
Lets say I take a Gun to you and your family, in a room, and say,.. Hey Give me your money. ARE You GOING TO NOT give me your money and have me kill you AND your family? Jesus, I hope you say that you will give me the money.
I have three choices...I can give you the money; my 17, 18, and 19 year old football player sons and I can overpower you, take your gun and shoot you with it; or my 3 sons and I can pull our own guns and shoot you first.
We are talking an internal revolution here. There are 22 million Iraqi people, only 1 million in the army (and not all loyal to Saddam). Do the math...would some die, yes people do in any revolution...would Saddam be gone, yes.
Ever hear the quote, "Give me liberty or give me death!"?? If the guys who lived by that slogan were as big a radish as you must be in order to say, "Jesus, I hope you say that you will give me the money," we would still be a British colony.
-
4. All countries in the world will be free from fear. UN will be a wealth that all countries in the world will participate. -aper-
The UN certainly is a wealth!
Since the program (oil for food) began operating, in December 1996, the U.N. has shepherded about $64 billion in Iraqi oil sales, and more than $39 billion in relief purchases, plus billions more for projects such as compensation to foreign victims of the first Gulf War. To cover its administrative costs, the U.N. collects a 2.2 percent commission on Iraqi oil sales, a setup that over the course of the program has generated more than $1 billion for U.N. coffers.
this is interesting too:
Beyond that, if you like Enron-style transparency, you have to love Oil-for-Food. At any given time, the program oversees billions in Iraq's money, awaiting the sludge-slow U.N. process of allocation and disbursement. For the first few years the U.N. parked the cash in a French bank, the Banque Nationale de Paris. More recently, it diversified the funds--currently totaling some $13 billion--among a handful of banks. But the U.N. provides no bank statements to the public, does not disclose the names of the banks, and won't even say what countries they're based in. Auditing is an in-house affair, conducted by government employees of a rotating trio of member states, chaired this year by France.
complete article:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/459pqvob.asp
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
I have three choices...I can give you the money; my 17, 18, and 19 year old football player sons and I can overpower you, take your gun and shoot you with it; or my 3 sons and I can pull our own guns and shoot you first.
We are talking an internal revolution here. There are 22 million Iraqi people, only 1 million in the army (and not all loyal to Saddam). Do the math...would some die, yes people do in any revolution...would Saddam be gone, yes.
Ever hear the quote, "Give me liberty or give me death!"?? If the guys who lived by that slogan were as big a radish as you must be in order to say, "Jesus, I hope you say that you will give me the money," we would still be a British colony.
Sorry to disagree, but you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
-
crowMaw,
Two quick observations I'd like your comments on:
1) The American Revolutionary War which you keep citing as an example of a people rising up and overthrowing their militarily more powerful oppressors was stuck in a no-win situation for the patriots for years. We would win a battle, the Brits would win a battle. We captiure a city, the Brits capture a city. What event finally brought the war to a succeful ending of the stalemate ?
As much as I hate to say it today, the entry of the French, in particular the French Navy. If not for them, the war would have gone on much longer, or possibly even have been lost.
2) Cambodia. What event overthrew the maniac Pol Pot, who it is estimated murdered a million Cambodians ? It certainly was NOT a popular uprising of the Cambodian people !
The Vietnamese had finally had enough of the butchery next door, and sent their army into Cambodia to end Pol Pot. Communists attacking Communists, because Pol Pot was insane.
Under your scenario the Cambodian people should have risen up and defeated their oppressors. Only in your scenario several million more would be dead.
Is my history correct ?
See Pol Pot's history (http://)
-
and where was the Pope.. or the UN ?
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
The Securitate was called in and disbursed the crowd using batons and shovels....
"Why didn't they shoot?", he demanded to know. He then ordered the military to move in and fire on the demonstrators. The protest had spread to most of the city as tanks and infantry moved in to carry out Ceausescu's order. Many soldiers did refuse to fire into the crowds,...and were executed by their commanders on the spot.
The Securitate guarding the mob were overrun and were stripped of their weapons.
At this point several military brigades in Bucharest switched sides and started to move towards the Committee building along with the protestors.
Thanks for making my point.
In the 1989 Romanian Coup d'Etat 1104 people died in December 1989. Before December 22nd 162 people died, 73 in Timisoara, 48 in Bucharest and 41 somewhere else in Romania. 3352 people were wounded. Some of the first victims were sent to Bucharest and cremated. The military had 260 dead, and 545 wounded. The "Securitatea" 65 dead and 73 wounded.
OTOH, in 91 in the North and in the South, Saddam's forces did shoot. Did remain engaged for a month until it was over. Did not switch sides. Estimates are 20,000 dead in Basra alone.
But senior Arab diplomats told the London-based Arabic daily newspaper al-Hayat in October that Iraqi leaders were privately acknowledging that 250,000 people were killed during the uprisings, with most of the casualties in the south.46 Independent investigation to verify this figure has not been possible, nor has it yet been possible to determine how many of these casualties were noncombatants.
As I said before, there's the difference.
I see you dodged the question of how the Kurds managed an Independent Kurdistan once the US/UK/France established the no-fly zone. They lost without it, won with external support. And have held it since.
-
"I have three choices...I can give you the money; my 17, 18, and 19 year old football player sons and I can overpower you, take your gun and shoot you with it; or my 3 sons and I can pull our own guns and shoot you first."
Lol you can slow down darwinism by breeding like crazy, but your perish is inevitable. If you're willing to risk your and your sons lives for a few bucks.. adios.
The majority of break-in homicides happen when the resident is armed and ready to fight. It's more likely for the resident to die to his own bullet after the perp seized the gun than for the perp to be shot by the resident.
-
1. Iraqi will have an opportunity to taste freedom and install a government they chose.
Should be read as
1. Iraqi will have an opportunity to taste freedom and install a government The US administration will chose.
-
Originally posted by Hristo
Iraqi people fight for freedom now.
Maybe bodybags will teach US a lesson.
hristo, I don't know where you're from, but u can be sure I will never lift a finger to back you up virtually or in reality.
-
Originally posted by Siaf__csf
[B
The majority of break-in homicides happen when the resident is armed and ready to fight. It's more likely for the resident to die to his own bullet after the perp seized the gun than for the perp to be shot by the resident. [/B]
This is pure tripe. Perhaps you are not aware of what actually goes o in the States since your posts indicate you are from Angola. You are very sadly mistaken in your premise. Most breakin homicides are the result of an unarmed victim and an armed intruder. I have been to more than one of those in my career.
-
Originally posted by MOSQ
hristo, I don't know where you're from, but u can be sure I will never lift a finger to back you up virtually or in reality.
Too late Mosq.
He's from the former Yugoslavia according to Grunherz.
So, you've already lifted more than a finger.
-
Yah, Mav... what would you know about it eh? ;)
He's not from Angola. He's just hiding, like most of the snipers do. Funny how many angry young men you see here on the BBS but never see anything like the BBS handle in the game isn't it?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yah, Mav... what would you know about it eh? ;)
He's not from Angola. He's just hiding, like most of the snipers do. Funny how many angry young men you see here on the BBS but never see anything like the BBS handle in the game isn't it?
I was going to mention that myself.
-
its cause theyare scared little bicches
and Siaf...you are a moron. and uneducated....perps taking guns?..LMFAo..im sure you were in the "Hundred Mom MArch"..
How about this...
Marine Corps General Reinwald was interviewed on the radio the other day
and
you have to read his reply to the lady who interviewed him concerning guns
and
children.
Regardless of how you feel about gun laws you got to love this!!!!
This is one of the best comeback lines of all time. It is a portion of a
National Public Radio (NPR) interview between a female broadcaster and US
Marine
Corps General Reinwald who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop visiting
his
military installation.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: So, General Reinwald, what things are you going to teach
these young boys when they visit your base?
GENERAL REINWALD: We're going to teach them climbing, canoeing, archery, and
shooting.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Shooting! That's a bit irresponsible, isn't it?
GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see why, they'll be properly supervised on the
rifle
range.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: Don't you admit that this is a terribly dangerous
activity
to be teaching children?
GENERAL REINWALD: I don't see how. We will be teaching them proper rifle
discipline before they even touch a firearm.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: But you're equipping them to become violent killers.
GENERAL REINWALD: Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not
one,
- are you?
The radio went silent and the interview ended.
LMFAo..
Salute BiGB
...ya..i ride by my handle ..do you?
-
Originally posted by Toad
In the 1989 Romanian Coup d'Etat 1104 people died in December 1989. Before December 22nd 162 people died, 73 in Timisoara, 48 in Bucharest and 41 somewhere else in Romania. 3352 people were wounded. Some of the first victims were sent to Bucharest and cremated. The military had 260 dead, and 545 wounded. The "Securitatea" 65 dead and 73 wounded.
Sorry...after more research you will learn that those are the confirmed dead. No true count is known as many of the bodies were cremated or dumped in the Timis or Bega rivers. The list of the missing is in the thousands. Eye witness reports from reporters from the Soviet Union contradict the "official" counts.
OTOH, in 91 in the North and in the South, Saddam's forces did shoot. Did remain engaged for a month until it was over. Did not switch sides. Estimates are 20,000 dead in Basra alone. [/B]
Since you are using the "official" counts of the dead above, then give and apples to apples comparison...how many "officially" died in Basra?
And regardless, the number of people revolting in the north and south did not even come close to a majority of the Iraqi people. When most of the people in and around Baghdad revolt with the people in the north&south and that revolt fails...then you have an argument.
As I said before, there's the difference.[/B]
Yes, and the difference is that not enough of the people in Iraq care enough to put an effort into removing Saddam themselves.
I see you dodged the question of how the Kurds managed an Independent Kurdistan once the US/UK/France established the no-fly zone. They lost without it, won with external support. And have held it since. [/B]
Well, obviously because the US/UK/France are protecting those 3 million Kurds. But how does that relate to the argument at hand: if enough Iraqis wanted Saddam out of power they could remove him themselves? 3 million Kurds is no where near a majority of Iraqis not even when combined with southern rebels.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Sorry to disagree, but you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
Disagreement is fine...but without backing up your assertion it appears that you are the one that has no idea what you are talking about.
Have you ever been confronted by an armed assailant? I have. Did I roll over...no...I drew my own weapon and he decided I was more likely to kill him than he was to kill me.
-
ok Crow wins...
The Iraq;s did vote Saddam in..and they love him...
is that rigth Crow?:D
BiGB
xoxo
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
Disagreement is fine...but without backing up your assertion it appears that you are the one that has no idea what you are talking about.
Have you ever been confronted by an armed assailant? I have. Did I roll over...no...I drew my own weapon and he decided I was more likely to kill him than he was to kill me.
Yes, I have.
However, I don't remember what the discussion was, and I can't find the post.
-
I agree with the US being the global policeman. No other country has the military to do it, and I also think ideologically the US is the right country to do it.
-
No, the difference is that Saddam had enough military to kill what's reported as ~ 250,000 Iraqis in order to put down a revolt.
Nowhere I have I seen anything like that number of dead in Romania... unofficial or official.
What Ceausescu (in case you don't know how to pronounce it, it's also been phonetically simulated as: say "chow - chess - kew") did not have is enough military like Saddam's. If he had, that revolt would likely have failed as well.
I suppose we may finally get some reliable numbers from the Iraqi revolts after Saddam is removed. Maybe. No doubt historians will research it.
Like they've down with the Romanian revolt now that Ceausescu is long gone.
The no-fly zone (the French dropped out when they resumed trade with Iraq, btw) relates because it shows that given military support AND resolve on the part of the Kurds, independence is quite possible. It highlights the results of the '91 revolt. Military power makes the difference. Saddam with his overwhelming military power can hold the country UNLESS the revolutionaries have some external military help.
In the South, with the higher losses, it appears he did extinguish most of the resolve though. We're seeing that right now, I believe.
It will be quite interesting to see what happens when it's clear the regime no longer exists.
-
Originally posted by MOSQ
1) The American Revolutionary War which you keep citing...As much as I hate to say it today, the entry of the French, in particular the French Navy. If not for them, the war would have gone on much longer, or possibly even have been lost.
A) I wasn't aware that I had mentioned the US Revolution more than once...I've been trying to use modern examples to show that overthrow of a dictator is possible.
B) There is a big difference between supplying assistance and aid to a revolution already in progress (one that was started and waged by the oppressed) and invading a country to liberate a people that have not made a serious effort to win their own freedom.
Now if the Declaration of Independence had never been written and France decided to invade England to depose King George so as to free the American Colonies, then that would be a good comparison to what is happening today.
2) Cambodia. What event overthrew the maniac Pol Pot, who it is estimated murdered a million Cambodians ? It certainly was NOT a popular uprising of the Cambodian people ! Under your scenario the Cambodian people should have risen up and defeated their oppressors. Only in your scenario several million more would be dead.
Is my history correct ?
[/B]
Absolutely! The Cambodians should have revolted if they did not like Pol Pot. Would millions more have died...probably. Sorry to sound callous, but it is their freedom...they should fight for it! If their freedom was not important enough to them to fight and die for it, why should it be important enough to anyone else to die for them?
Oddly, I was going to compare Romania to Cambodia as they found similar "killing fields" created by Ceausescu during one of his many purges.
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: But you're equipping them to become violent killers.
GENERAL REINWALD: Well, you're equipped to be a prostitute, but you're not one, - are you?
ROTFLMAO!
Good one BigB! Glad we agree on at least something! :)
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Yes, I have.
However, I don't remember what the discussion was, and I can't find the post.
Your post from 03-31-2003 11:01 PM
-
Originally posted by Toad
Nowhere I have I seen anything like that number of dead in Romania... unofficial or official.
The only thing I can point you to on the web is here:
http://www.ceausescu.org/ceausescu_texts/revolution/revolt_daybyday.htm
However, if you are really interested, you can get a book by Matei Calinescu titled The 1989 Revolution and Romania's Problems of Communism which has eye witness accounts.
Here is one quote from the book from a Russian reporter: "entering Timisoara we crossed the bridge and watched military forces throwing weighted bodies into the river."
Somehow, I just don't think that they would go through the trouble of having mass graves, AND cart bodies off to be cremated, AND also dump bodies into the Timis if there were a mere 73 dead.
What Ceausescu (in case you don't know how to pronounce it, it's also been phonetically simulated as: say "chow - chess - kew") did not have is enough military like Saddam's. If he had, that revolt would likely have failed as well.
Really...pony up some data Bud. I listed his 1989 military assets yesterday just in case you tried to argue that Ceausescu's military was less than Saddam's...show me data that contradicts what I posted. Sure looks comparable to me...and superior in some areas.
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
Your post from 03-31-2003 11:01 PM
Ahhh, thanks.
While fundementally it sounds easy to just rise up and overthrow a sadistic dictatorship, there are some fundemental barriers. While I'm not saying (obviously) that it is impossible, I am saying it is extremely difficult.
Lets say you want to revolt. There are forces and spies in town. They killed a guy and his family last year for conspiring to revolt. Who do you talk to? Not a stranger, too dangerous.
Ok, now you've found a group willing to revolt. If you meet and they find out, your families, maybe your whole village, is dead. By this stage some have most likely died already. You have to take this fighting group, with small arms, gather it, and attack an already assembled and equipped army. The whole time worrying about your family.
That's why there are so many from the people's congress over here now. Saddam has so many people in his pocket through fear, everytime they tried to organize something it ended in slaughter.
The most successful rebellions are military coups. Saddam keeps his best forces happy though. They have a direct interest in him staying in power.
We had it made during our rebellion, our oppressors lived months away.
-
"like Saddam's"; Not necessarily quantitatively.
From your undoubtedly accurate to the last vowel depiction, the Securitate being stripped of their weapons doesn't seem to compare with the reports of how the Republican Guard fared against the Kurds and the Shiites. After initial reverses, the state forces came back extremely successfully and harshly.
We both agree that xxxxxxxxxx nation's boys should be dying for xxxxxxxxx nation's independence.
However, we disagree on whether or not a populace without heavy weapons can successfully revolt against a government that accepts slaughter and genocide as an acceptable means of control, equipped with heavy weapons and soldiers more than willing to use them against their countrymen. Such a populace would have to have external military aid. IMO.
How'd the Kurds succeed in the North with a no-fly zone? They failed miserably without one in '91 but have held an Indpendent Kurdistan with the addition of "just" a no-fly zone... external military aid.
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
ok Crow wins...
Glad you finally admit it! :)
Hey, you can go on thinking that the US should invade Britain to overthrow the un-elected monarchy all you want.
What do all you Brits think about BigB wanting the US to invade your country. BigB must hate Brits. He must have wanted Hitler to win WWII to get rid of Brits. BiGB is a NAZI!!
Which country do you want to invade after that BigB?
Oh, I know...BigB wants to kill the Pope and have Catholism outlawed...Catholics didn't get to vote for the Pope! BiGB hates Catholics!!! BiGB wants to start Catholic concentration camps too!
WTG BiGB. ;)
-
Originally posted by Martlet
While fundementally it sounds easy to just rise up and overthrow a sadistic dictatorship, there are some fundemental barriers. While I'm not saying (obviously) that it is impossible, I am saying it is extremely difficult.
Never said it would be easy. But if the majority of the Iraqi people are not willing to risk their lives to be free, why should anyone else risk their lives to give them freedom.
It can be done...study Romania...study Iran (I haven't even started in on the history of Iran's revolution).
As far as being able to create revolutionary cells...it can be done. Iraq is dangerous for dissidents but they obviously do exist...look at Salam Pax's blog. They know how to get around the Party.
-
huh?
Crow...
ahh nevermind..theres enuff here to oppose your "ideas" of Iraqs people to win for them selves..
Personally..Like you said..They can All die ......Doesnt effect me...
BUT what does is hes a freakshow...who has WMDs..and im not waiting to see who he gives them too....
Yes we need to Disarm him..The UN said yes to this 12 years ago...
HOW CAN ANYONE ARGUE THIS!!!!!
FUQ ALL OF YOU WHO SAY DIFFERENT YOU ARE MORONS AND ARE GOING TO BE VOTING FOR DASCHLE....so be it...
"Wheres a Bulldozer when you need 1"
Love
BiGB
-
Originally posted by Toad
"like Saddam's"; Not necessarily quantitatively.
More conjecture? Where's the beef? Give me some qualitative comparisons between the two military forces.
From your undoubtedly accurate to the last vowel depiction, the Securitate being stripped of their weapons doesn't seem to compare with the reports of how the Republican Guard fared against the Kurds and the Shiites. After initial reverses, the state forces came back extremely successfully and harshly. [/B]
The Securitate who were guarding a group of forced "pro-Ceausescu" demonstrators were stripped of their weapons. We are talking probably less than 100 guards for over 1000 demonstrators.
The rest of the Securitate, Security Troops and Worker's Guards kept their weapons and used them against the Romainian people. They did fight back.
The difference is that in Iraq the revolt never spread through out the country. The people of Baghdad did not revolt with the people of Basra.
In Romania, the protest rippled through the entire country. The people of Bucharest revolted with the people of Timisoara. The majority of people in Romania violently called for a change because they had had enough.
The majority of Iraqis evidently never reached that level of hate for Saddam that the Romanians did for Ceausescu.
We both agree that xxxxxxxxxx nation's boys should be dying for xxxxxxxxx nation's independence. [/B]
Glad we agree on something. I don't see that happening even now with US military aid on the ground. I don't see the people of Baghdad carrying out acts of sabotage while the Republican Guard is busy with the US forces. I don't see Iraqi expatriates here in the US getting on planes to go back to Iraq to organize a resistance front. I do see Iraqi expatriates going home to fight against the US though.
However, we disagree on whether or not a populace without heavy weapons can successfully revolt against a government that accepts slaughter and genocide as an acceptable means of control, equipped with heavy weapons and soldiers more than willing to use them against their countrymen. Such a populace would have to have external military aid. IMO. [/B]
Well, I've given you one example where your opinion did not play out as you would have expected. I could go into the Iranian Revolution of 1979, but I doubt you are willing to consider that your opinion has been contradicted by historical events regardless of how many examples I am able to give.
How'd the Kurds succeed in the North with a no-fly zone? They failed miserably without one in '91 but have held an Indpendent Kurdistan with the addition of "just" a no-fly zone... external military aid. [/B]
The Kurds are a tiny minority...that is why they fail without external assistance.
-
The qualitative comparison would be in their relative success. The Iraqi troops had success; the Romanians did not. You attribute this to the difference in the % of the population in revolt. I attribute this to the willingness of the Iraqi troops to kill everyone and anyone that opposed them. I think the reported deaths respectively bear that out.
So, disagree.
I'm willing to wait on the clear neutralization of Saddam's governmental and military apparatus to see how the people really feel.
Some reports that they're beginning to help with information right now.
It may be that they've been absolutely cowed by the regime and I'm sure us not helping in '91 has made them extremely gunshy about getting out in front again.
So, willing to wait. But it'd be a d mn sight better if they were particpating, I agree.
My opinion is basically that the side with heavy weaponry (tanks, planes & artillery) and having soldiers willing to use that against their own citizens will win against a citizenry using primarily small arms. I think historically, if those conditions are met, my opinion is correct.
Ah, but the point is the "tiny minority" of Kurds WIN with minimal external military assistance. You take Saddam's heavy weapons out of it and .... Independent Kurdistan. To me, that highlights what I just said in the previous paragraph.
-
Originally posted by Toad
The qualitative comparison would be in their relative success.
There can be no qualitative comparison based on success as the Iraqi military has not faced a majority of Iraqis in revolt as the Romanian military did in 1989.
Ah, but the point is the "tiny minority" of Kurds WIN with minimal external military assistance. You take Saddam's heavy weapons out of it and .... Independent Kurdistan. To me, that highlights what I just said in the previous paragraph. [/B]
So lets get back to the issue at hand: I say that there is not a majority of Iraqis who want Saddam out of power, if there were then they would be able to force him out. Your example here would indicate that our invasion of Iraq is unnecessary. All that would need to be done to have Saddam removed is to impose a no-fly zone over all of Iraq, which would allow the majority of Iraqis to oust him (if that majority existed).
The Kurds want independence and are willing to fight for it. It appears that the rest of Iraq (except for another small majority in the south) is willing to live under Saddam's tyranny. Plus it appears that even the minority in the south is not too interested in independence as they have enjoyed the same no-fly zone assistance that the Kurds have had yet are not nearly as autonomous as the Kurds.
-
Clearly we're not going to agree.
You view the determing factor of the success of a revolt to be the % of the populace willing to revolt.
I view the determing factor of the success of a revolt to be the willingness of the side with the most troops/heavy weapons to use them without mercy until the revolt is quelled.
The revolts you use, Romania, Iran and Russian we're not characterized by a "loyal" military that was willing to kill an unlimited number of civilians.
OTOH, both the North and South revolts in Iraq were characterized by just such a military.
The revolts you showcase succeeded. The Iraqi ones failed.
You view this as proof of your "majority" position. I view this as proof of my "unlimited slaughter" position.
We are not going to agree.
And as for the second part, we have two empirical examples to look at. The revolts in the North and the South.
In the North, after initially losing to Saddam's troops, the Kurds emerged later with an independent Kurdistan with the addition of an externally enforced no-fly zone.
In the South, where according to reports the losing initial revolt was more bloody and fierce than that of the North, the Shiites have not risen since, despite the addition of an externally enforced no-fly zone.
Seems to suggest that there are other factors at work to me. I'll submit that the Southerners may be/are totally cowed down after the slaughter visited upon them in the '91 revolt and the thousands (then thousands?) of executions in its wake.
I think we'll have a better understanding after Saddam's regime is clearly powerless and we see how the populace reacts.
None the less, I do agree that there should be primarily Iraqi boys fighting for Iraqi freedom.
I just don't think they'd ever succeed without external help as long as the State has the total loyalty of the troops with the heavy weapons.
-
Live from Baghdad:
crowMaw eats crow !
-
You want that boiled, or fried?
-
lol
-
Originally posted by Hristo
Iraqi people fight for freedom now.
Maybe bodybags will teach US a lesson.
Hristo, where's your laser like intelligence now ?
Perhaps your having dinner with crowMaw?
-
Originally posted by MOSQ
Live from Baghdad:
crowMaw eats crow !
Huh?? Which post am I eating crow about?
-
Originally posted by crowMAW
I say that there is not a majority of Iraqis who want Saddam out of power, if there were then they would be able to force him out....... Plus it appears that even the minority in the south is not too interested in independence ....
Hmm, I guess all those Iraqis going crazy with jubilation in every city are a tiny minority.
Again: Live From Baghdad: crowMaw eats crow !
-
Originally posted by MOSQ
Hmm, I guess all those Iraqis going crazy with jubilation in every city are a tiny minority.
Again: Live From Baghdad: crowMaw eats crow !
Yup, I said that...but lets put the paragraph in that you so conveniently left out:
Originally posted by crowMAW
The Kurds want independence and are willing to fight for it. It appears that the rest of Iraq (except for another small majority in the south) is willing to live under Saddam's tyranny. Plus it appears that even the minority in the south is not too interested in independence as they have enjoyed the same no-fly zone assistance that the Kurds have had yet are not nearly as autonomous as the Kurds.
I think it is pretty clear the intent from this part of the post and from others where I say that the Iraqis "choose" to live under Saddam by their inaction. If there had been enough Iraqis who wanted Saddam out of power, ie who were willing to die to be free rather than live under his tyranny, he would have been gone.