Iranian Missle launch-what does it mean?

[Tribesman]

Perhaps, and I must admit it, there are some valid reasons for the Iranian government to be so anti-American. In light of our past complicity with Saddam Hussein's invasion plans it isn't difficult to see why the Iranians view our intervention in Iraq as a threat.

Not really since for Iran the US intervention was a favour not a threat, after all lots of those Iraqi exiles who were selling America a pile of bull were working for Iran all the time.

[rotorgun]

Not really since for Iran the US intervention was a favour not a threat, after all lots of those Iraqi exiles who were selling America a pile of bull were working for Iran all the time.

Well I'm not sure about the Iraqi exiles actually working for Iran, but what you said first is quite true. The cause and effect that Von Clausewitz mentioned is that our intervention accomplished what they had wanted all along, the removal of the Saddam Hussein regime. Now their tacit support of the Shiite militias, while avoiding a direct involvement with the coalition is poised to accomplish their second goal, the removal of US and Coalition forces from the region. This is a victory worthy of Sun Tsu himself, and has my grudging respect as a soldier. I just hope that our hypocritical politicians can accept the defeat and move diplomatically to regain our country's reputation.

You and I will always be opposed about Afghanistan though. What we started there, right or wrong must be salvaged, for the sake of the poor population if nothing else. If the Taliban returns it will be terrible for them.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Uuuh... Well we could have tried the U.N but the U.S has really screwed that up

You're joking, aren't you?

why do you feel that the U.S should spend loads of money and kill loads of people for the sake of "intervention"?

Not intervention for intervention's sake.

I want them to stop for the simple reason that the U.S is very good at killing civilians and then covering it up behind deciet and a media wall, they are even better at covering up the reasons for an "intervention", oh and sorry lets stop with the Newspeak ok, it's called war.

If they cover it up and do it well, how do you know about it?

[Samurai Waki]

The US military is one of the most transparent military organizations in the world. If anything has been covered up, they're doing it well since I, and the rest of the world know most of our blunders in Afghanistan.

Sri Lanka otoh is trying to cover up their massacres.

[KarlXII]

Uuuh... Well we could have tried the U.N but the U.S has really screwed that up, why do you feel that the U.S should spend loads of money and kill loads of people for the sake of "intervention"?

Yes, the incompetence of the U.N. is completely the fault of the United States, and NOT of it's indecisive members and non-enforcing resolutions.

I want them to stop for the simple reason that the U.S is very good at killing civilians and then covering it up behind deciet and a media wall, they are even better at covering up the reasons for an "intervention", oh and sorry lets stop with the Newspeak ok, it's called war.

A superpower intervenes in foreign affairs and has wars. I think I may jump off a cliff, that's so radical!

No, as a U.S. citizen, I have the right to know what my government is doing. Be it now or in 20 years. I can easily find U.S. based sources stating the deaths of civilians with no white washing. Or I can hail my evil nation that is run by Hitler and Stalin's love baby.

I respect your willingness to serve, however it is that type of agressive and combative mindset which has ruined U.S ability to resolve issues without a bullet. You have forced Iran into a corner, worse Iran is a nation which can fight back from that corner and that is what it is doing, look at it from the top, two large U.S forces either side of the country, again you are the most feared nation on earth, that comes with a price. In this case the price is that other nations don't want to hear your bollox about non-proliferation and peace talks when you go round breaking international law and allow Israel its own nukes whil supporting it blatant abuse of Muslim population.

Classic Realpolitik. I thought you would have known better, especially in this age. Romanticism is dead. Nations don't fight for ideas or the good of the people, they fight for political and international power.

[KarlXII]

If they cover it up and do it well, how do you know about it?

You've fallen for Zionist Nazi propoganda. Please report to the nearest Enlightenment station.

[Incongruous]

A superpower intervenes in foreign affairs and has wars. I think I may jump off a cliff, that's so radical!

No, as a U.S. citizen, I have the right to know what my government is doing. Be it now or in 20 years. I can easily find U.S. based sources stating the deaths of civilians with no white washing. Or I can hail my evil nation that is run by Hitler and Stalin's love baby.

Right, a superpower intervenes and someone is unhappy about, get a grip and realise that criticism has also been around for a long, long, long time. Stop the history lesson and deal with the here and now, the reason why you are paying through the nose for an absurd string of "intervnetions". Its probably the same reason Iraqi's and Afghans are being killed in absurd numbers.

Classic Realpolitik. I thought you would have known better, especially in this age. Romanticism is dead. Nations don't fight for ideas or the good of the people, they fight for political and international power.

If your stupid bloody "interventions"/invasions and retarded willingness to shoot people are what you consider Realpolitik, then I'm gonna break down in laughter. Again, lets look at the reality of what is happaning in Iraq and Afghanistan, you are loosing. Romanticism my arse mate.

The US military is one of the most transparent military organizations in the world. If anything has been covered up, they're doing it well since I, and the rest of the world know most of our blunders in Afghanistan.

If they cover it up and do it well, how do you know about it?

Sorry, cover up was too strong a word and of course infers some competency, I mean an attempt to cover up, or decieve. It does do this and has got very good at using the medi in this regard.
I think the question you should really be asking Mars, is why don't you know about it?

Are you so sure that the U.S military is so transparent? When it says it killed Taliban fighters, you sure they are always Taliban...
But go ahead and continue.

[rasoforos]

The US military is one of the most transparent military organizations in the world.

On what evidence do you base this assumption?

I believe that even Neo-Cons would smirk at such a statement. Not to mention that Dick Cheney (if he is reading these forums) has probably spilled his drink and fallen off his chair laughing .

I, however, shall keep an open mind, waiting for the proof.

[Samurai Waki]

in terms of Media, no other military is covered quite so much. Which makes its hard to cover up the screw ups. Higher Echelon operations, dictates, and directives are certainly kept classified in order to protect the best interests of the Soldier's who perform high profile missions, as well as the interests of the state. However, I can't think of any other country that does any differently, and the speculation behind whats happening behind closed doors is the speculation of so many, since the US is actually decent at keeping a lot of state secrets, secret.

I'm really talking about what is visible to the naked eye, not what is happening within the Pentagon. And from I can see, the Organization is relatively visible in it's intent and what objectives need to be completed in order to achieve their mission.

Of course, we are talking about the largest deployed military on earth atm. So if another larger power begins deploying in strength, I could be proven wrong.

[rasoforos]

in terms of Media, no other military is covered quite so much.

Of course the US army is covered by the media. And the media 'covers up' a lot of stuff. If you watch international media you will notice that, every time the states is at war, the stories of CNN and FOX are much different than the stories of foreign media.

Also, the US is very good at directing media to their own ways. For example, nowhere in US based news websites, did I see a strong reaction to the fact that the Iraq-WMD supposed link was based on a postgraduate student's thesis.

If it is any consolation I do not think of any military organization as transparent, not do I think that the US military is particularly less transparent than average.

I'm really talking about what is visible to the naked eye, not what is happening within the Pentagon.

Of course. But that makes our argument less valid. We cannot really ever have the whole picture. Only the tip of the iceberg.

And from I can see, the Organization is relatively visible in it's intent and what objectives need to be completed in order to achieve their mission.

Of course the objectives and motives are quite different and rather more malevolent than the stated ones (again this is true for all armies in my opinion). So this is not real transparency. On the contrary the US war machine is quite eager to state altruistic (and therefore untrue) motives.

Of course, we are talking about the largest deployed military on earth atm. So if another larger power begins deploying in strength, I could be proven wrong.

Quite so. The spotlight over the US war machine is much bigger than for any other nation.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Russia has nukes. It's hobbies involve proxy wars and invasions

Ahhh, so when Russia finally, for the first time in more than 20 years, but briefly lays waste to 15% of a nation (Abhazia and South Ossetia are not part of Georgia by their own reckoning) it is now its hobby to invade other countries but when US has an intervention every other year it is "spreading democracy" and "liberating countries from repressive regimes". I see.

Well, save for the Kurds, every Iraqi I, my father, and his boss (my father is a lawyer at an immigration firm) have talked to said that their lives have been close to peaches-n'-cream during Saddam's regime. National Geographic reports the same. It was the best times Iraq has had. Everything was cheap, plentiful, and booming. Now? I doubt I need to comment. So that was OK, but when Russia decided to be the bad boy, and knock out a few teeth out of Georgia and withdraw that was bad?

Sure, Russia was being a(n) when it trounced Georgia, but as we see now, no WMDs have been found yet. But it is too late. The country is as stable as Uranium, or worse, elemental Fluorine, and in shambles as a bonus.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Well, save for the Kurds, every Iraqi I, my father, and his boss (my father is a lawyer at an immigration firm) have talked to said that their lives have been close to peaches-n'-cream during Saddam's regime.

That's like saying Nazi Germany was OK for most people except, you know, minorities.

[Aemilius Paulus]

That's like saying Nazi Germany was OK for most people except, you know, minorities.

I know it may seem difficult to say with a straight face, but save for the war, Germany was marvellous for most people. The only trouble is, Hitler targeted loads of people, whereas Saddam focused his efforts on one particular group, that was not that undeserving either. Ever heard of PKK and other Kurdish Resistance Movements? Those blokes want autonomy or independence, but such requests are never reasonable.

In any case, no nation is perfect. Every nation has its own persecuted peoples, and quite a bit still actively kill the minorities. Especially when the minorities are as militant and separatist as Kurds. Yet none of those countries are invaded. Do not believe myths told about the Kurd's peacefulness either. When every other reason is gone, it is but fitting to hold on to the last justification for the invasion of Iraq. Sure, not all are militant, but a great portion are.

Honestly, Saddam's treatment of Kurds is not a justification for invading Iraq. Nor was it ever a reason, just as drilling oil was not. The reason was the need for a pro-American government in such a strategically and economically valuable region. US never simply "took" the oil. It still buys it for the same market prices. The reason was that Saddam was put by the Yanks in the first place to keep Iran in check. Now that Saddam went rogue... well, you get it.

[rotorgun]

I know it may seem difficult to say with a straight face, but save for the war, Germany was marvellous for most people. The only trouble is, Hitler targeted loads of people, whereas Saddam focused his efforts on one particular group, that was not that undeserving either. Ever heard of PKK and other Kurdish Resistance Movements? Those blokes want autonomy or independence, but such requests are never reasonable.

In any case, no nation is perfect. Every nation has its own persecuted peoples, and quite a bit still actively kill the minorities. Especially when the minorities are as militant and separatist as Kurds. Yet none of those countries are invaded. Do not believe myths told about the Kurd's peacefulness either. When every other reason is gone, it is but fitting to hold on to the last justification for the invasion of Iraq. Sure, not all are militant, but a great portion are.

Honestly, Saddam's treatment of Kurds is not a justification for invading Iraq. Nor was it ever a reason, just as drilling oil was not. The reason was the need for a pro-American government in such a strategically and economically valuable region. US never simply "took" the oil. It still buys it for the same market prices. The reason was that Saddam was put by the Yanks in the first place to keep Iran in check. Now that Saddam went rogue... well, you get it.

I tend to agree with much that you say here; invading for any of the other reasons you mentioned than to have a strategic position from which to discourage Iran's regional political aims ties in well with the thinking of the Cheney/Wolfowitz concepts. That is to discourage any nation in an area of vital strategic importance, and the Persian Gulf oil flow is of great importance to the west, from seeking a greater or dominant role. This was stated by them during the first Bush administration after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Iran's strategy seems to have been to avoid direct conflict with the United States, while working clandestinely and diplomatically to quicken the departure of coalition forces from Iraq, now that the work of regime change is complete. Why they have continued to antagonize Israel is strange to me. Maybe someone can explain it better than I can, but perhaps they mean to goad Israel into military action. What could be gained by such a result? What will be Israel's reaction to say, a successful nuclear test? How will the world react should Israel take such an action?

[Incongruous]

I tend to agree with much that you say here; invading for any of the other reasons you mentioned than to have a strategic position from which to discourage Iran's regional political aims ties in well with the thinking of the Cheney/Wolfowitz concepts. That is to discourage any nation in an area of vital strategic importance, and the Persian Gulf oil flow is of great importance to the west, from seeking a greater or dominant role. This was stated by them during the first Bush administration after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Iran's strategy seems to have been to avoid direct conflict with the United States, while working clandestinely and diplomatically to quicken the departure of coalition forces from Iraq, now that the work of regime change is complete. Why they have continued to antagonize Israel is strange to me. Maybe someone can explain it better than I can, but perhaps they mean to goad Israel into military action. What could be gained by such a result? What will be Israel's reaction to say, a successful nuclear test? How will the world react should Israel take such an action?

The foreign policy of the U.S in the middle east when dealing with Arab states is always tied to the inerests of Big Oil, it was the same with France and the U.K, since the 40's.

Iran will continue to try and piss all over the U.S' show for as long as possible, conflict has actually been direct according to some U.S soldiers, an embarressing fact for both sides maybe?

Israel's position in the world has been seriously weekend by its belief that it can do whatever it wants under the wing of the U.S, clearly this was and is the wrong attitude to have. Iran will use its Nuclear devices as a detterent, if Israel tries to do anything about it, it will finally be recognised as the dangerous rogue state that it is. The U.S should then back away from its crazy cohort and be prepared for the massive global condemnation, from China, the E.U and Russia, which would be sent its and Israel's way. I doubt Israel would be so stupid, it is now (after January) one of the most despised states in the world, it will have to lay low for a while I think.

The Iranian government will know this.

[Kadagar_AV]

in terms of Media, no other military is covered quite so much. Which makes its hard to cover up the screw ups. Higher Echelon operations, dictates, and directives are certainly kept classified in order to protect the best interests of the Soldier's who perform high profile missions, as well as the interests of the state. However, I can't think of any other country that does any differently, and the speculation behind whats happening behind closed doors is the speculation of so many, since the US is actually decent at keeping a lot of state secrets, secret.

I'm really talking about what is visible to the naked eye, not what is happening within the Pentagon. And from I can see, the Organization is relatively visible in it's intent and what objectives need to be completed in order to achieve their mission.

Of course, we are talking about the largest deployed military on earth atm. So if another larger power begins deploying in strength, I could be proven wrong.

1. Do you have a source or what do you base that on?

2. Your point is still void as it isn't the US army fighting its wars (contrary to popular beliefs). Blackwater and other private companies have more men in ie Iraq than there is US troops there. These private troops are often much worse war criminals than the army, but don't have the same media coverage and also doesnt work under the laws of war.

This McArmy (as they are called in Iraq, I heard from friends there) is the real problem IMHO.

Thoughts?

[KarlXII]

2. Your point is still void as it isn't the US army fighting its wars (contrary to popular beliefs). Blackwater and other private companies have more men in ie Iraq than there is US troops there. These private troops are often much worse war criminals than the army, but don't have the same media coverage and also doesnt work under the laws of war.

Thoughts?

I'd like to see a source on that. Around 13,000 U.S. soldiers. I doubt Blackwater is even near that amount.

[Aemilius Paulus]

2. Your point is still void as it isn't the US army fighting its wars (contrary to popular beliefs). Blackwater and other private companies have more men in ie Iraq than there is US troops there. These private troops are often much worse war criminals than the army, but don't have the same media coverage and also doesnt work under the laws of war.

This McArmy (as they are called in Iraq, I heard from friends there) is the real problem IMHO.

Thoughts?

True, there are quite a bit of private contractors. Such as Blackwater. But not more than US troops. Not to mention, the most important point to take into consideration is the fact that those private contractors are relegated to support duties such as logistics (escorting supply convoys), security (of military installations, not the streets), and many other things. They are also, for instance, mostly in charge of the kitchen units. In any case, they are not active patrol-duty units in most cases

[Incongruous]

I'd like to see a source on that. Around 13,000 U.S. soldiers. I doubt Blackwater is even near that amount.

Well, maybe not blackwater alone, but the U.K has 21,000 hired guns in Iraq.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Well, save for the Kurds, every Iraqi I, my father, and his boss (my father is a lawyer at an immigration firm) have talked to said that their lives have been close to peaches-n'-cream during Saddam's regime. National Geographic reports the same. It was the best times Iraq has had. Everything was cheap, plentiful, and booming.

Do you know if you were mostly talking with Ba'athists and Sunnis? Because I doubt that being a Shia was peaches and cream even if it was better than the invasion and occupation. And let's not count Kurds or political dissidents, eh?

I know it may seem difficult to say with a straight face, but save for the war, Germany was marvellous for most people. The only trouble is, Hitler targeted loads of people, whereas Saddam focused his efforts on one particular group, that was not that undeserving either. Ever heard of PKK and other Kurdish Resistance Movements? Those blokes want autonomy or independence, but such requests are never reasonable.

Saddam targeted more than just the Kurds (although you seem to be the type who thinks political dissidents "deserve" what they get in brutal autocracies). Furthermore, saying Germany was "marvelous" for six years (for those that didn't incur the wrath of the state) isn't really saying much.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Do you know if you were mostly talking with Ba'athists and Sunnis? Because I doubt that being a Shia was peaches and cream even if it was better than the invasion and occupation. And let's not count Kurds or political dissidents, eh?

It was both. The Shi'a clients said it was quite difficult and sometimes impossible to get to high positions, but otherwise, life was generally good. Anything is better than the invasion according to those people. Invasion is what they were fleeing. Iraq was stable before the invasion. Now it is not. Now people die there. At any moment, one can lose their loved ones. No one appreciates that. Dn all Americans who foolishly believe the invasion is currently beneficial for Iraq. It may prove to be for the best later on, but for now, Iraq is hell.

Hate to generalise, but you Americans are not fully cognisant of the desire for stability other nationals have. You scoff at us Russians for not supporting "democracy" and instead backing Putin and his quasi-authoritarian government. For preferring stability over freedom. But you have not lived our life. You know not what instability and uncertainty is. When Soviet Union collapsed, among other things, people lost all their savings due to changes in currency.

My grandfather was a big wheel in USSR. Yet he was a model of honesty and hardwork. He saved substantial amounts of money for my parents, enough for them to buy a splendid mansion and a Volga, about the best and most luxurious car widely available to people in USSR. Yet he lost all during the transition. Millions had the same happen. In USSR your money was automatically transferred to your bank account once you were paid. The vast majority of people kept everything there. All lost.

Other countries are similar, where instability is even more egregious. Their instability breeds wars. For other countries, stability is freedom. Democracy is not for everyone. Only the most advanced countries can support it, or incredibly lucky ones. nations such as India and South Africa came under positive influence of the British Empire, apparently. It enabled them to set up free governments. But the government in SA was apartheid for depressingly long period of time. Indian democracy was supported by the wise and strong Nehru-Gandhi family, which defined Indian politics.

Now with Putin, there is a hope for an honest, corruption-free leadership for Russia. Putin uses unconventional methods and he suppresses dissent, yet life in Russia is constantly improving and there is a hope of continuity as Putin appoints his successor. much better than that drunken, corrupt and idiotic Yeltsin. Russia is not advanced enough to sustain any type of democracy beyond crony democracy. Corruption is too firmly entrenched. Once Putin hopefully curbs it, then, and only then, can true democracy take root in the Russian Federation.

Saddam targeted more than just the Kurds (although you seem to be the type who thinks political dissidents "deserve" what they get in brutal autocracies).

Of course he did. There is always political dissidents in every regime. In the less kind ones, the dissidents are highly persecuted. But he targeted them not because they simply existed, such as ethnicity, but because of their own actions. They were responsible for their own fate.

Now, let us not make weakly-based assumptions here, as I do not believe they exactly deserve what they get. However, they have chosen their fate. When they go against the government, such a repressive one too, they know what they will get. It is their choice.

I salute them for actually doing something to change their country, but I do to expect them to live long. A dictatorial regime like Saddam's can only maintain its power and stability when all dissent is crushed. Nations such as Iraq have very little constancy. Very little peace. If Saddam was to be toppled, the country would go back into a maelstrom of coups and civil wars. With preponderance of executions following each coup. Simply look at Syria before Baath Party took over. A coup every year.

Countries like Iraq necessitate dictators such as Saddam. I may not be notably progressive here, but more of a realist. Individuals supporting democracy from my experience esteem the quality of the life of a citizen as the most crucial consideration in the adjudication of a political system. You want a revolution or a plenary reform, and it will be bloody. You want the optimal quality of life, then get a dictatorship.

[Kadagar_AV]

I'd like to see a source on that. Around 13,000 U.S. soldiers. I doubt Blackwater is even near that amount.

"shock doctrine" There is one source...



private companies such as black water handle eveything from making food to interogating prisoners.

[rotorgun]

Hate to generalize, but you Americans are not fully cognizant of the desire for stability other nationals have. You scoff at us Russians for not supporting "democracy" and instead backing Putin and his quasi-authoritarian government. For preferring stability over freedom. But you have not lived our life. You know not what instability and uncertainty is. When Soviet Union collapsed, among other things, people lost all their savings due to changes in currency.

Indeed we may have not lived your life, but we can empathize. Many Americans remember our great depression, with its soup kitchens and government sponsored assistance. There was a great socialistic and communist movement within our country; America was fearful of the turmoil and instability. My late grandfather told me some heartbreaking stories of those times. Had the war not come, and our subsequent involvement in it, I am not so sure that our Republic would have survived as it is.

My grandfather was a big wheel in USSR. Yet he was a model of honesty and hardwork. He saved substantial amounts of money for my parents, enough for them to buy a splendid mansion and a Volga, about the best and most luxurious car widely available to people in USSR. Yet he lost all during the transition. Millions had the same happen. In USSR your money was automatically transferred to your bank account once you were paid. The vast majority of people kept everything there. All lost.

My sincere condolences, and believe me that I mean no disrespect, but doesn't the acquisition of such wealth fly in the face of the communist ideal of the proletariat? Wasn't that why such a system was adopted by the people? I have always wondered how individuals could attain such a position in a system that was supposed to discourage the attainment of wealth as bourgeois.

Other countries are similar, where instability is even more egregious. Their instability breeds wars. For other countries, stability is freedom. Democracy is not for everyone. Only the most advanced countries can support it, or incredibly lucky ones. nations such as India and South Africa came under positive influence of the British Empire, apparently. It enabled them to set up free governments. But the government in SA was apartheid for depressingly long period of time. Indian democracy was supported by the wise and strong Nehru-Gandhi family, which defined Indian politics.

A little over two hundred years ago, our new "democracy" was birthed from one of the most backward and divided group of colonies that has ever existed. I guess I would count us among the lucky. Had our country been closer to war charged Europe, things might have gone very differently. I don't agree that democracy can only succeed in advanced countries as you say. Our very existence and survival proves my assertion. But you do make some interesting arguments.

Now with Putin, there is a hope for an honest, corruption-free leadership for Russia. Putin uses unconventional methods and he suppresses dissent, yet life in Russia is constantly improving and there is a hope of continuity as Putin appoints his successor. much better than that drunken, corrupt and idiotic Yeltsin. Russia is not advanced enough to sustain any type of democracy beyond crony democracy. Corruption is too firmly entrenched. Once Putin hopefully curbs it, then, and only then, can true democracy take root in the Russian Federation.

Try a little compromise friend. It is the secret of a successful representative government. I think it is just very difficult for people in some cultures to do this. Corruption exists in every government, and always will. Look at America. Corporate corruption is rampant in our political system, and periodically achieves levels of dominance. I think that the dynamics our party system, as well as the term limits set in the executive branch serve to put limits on corruption in the long term. Giving citizens a voice, or at least the illusion that the have a say in matters serves to keep the general populace content.
I know things aren't perfect in our country, but I have faith in the wisdom of our constitution.

Countries like Iraq necessitate dictators such as Saddam. I may not be notably progressive here, but more of a realist. Individuals supporting democracy from my experience esteem the quality of the life of a citizen as the most crucial consideration in the adjudication of a political system. You want a revolution or a plenary reform, and it will be bloody. You want the optimal quality of life, then get a dictatorship.

Agreed, but isn't one of your complaints about the fall of the Soviet regime that your family lost quality of life? Isn't that a concern for all of us? The hubris of the American leaders who led us into Iraq is that they didn't face the consequences of defeating the Iraqi Army. They hoped for an easy solution, but failed to realize that democracy is something that Iraqis have never experienced in their history. For it to even possibly succeed will take generations of reeducation of the population, if such political, religious, and ethnic differences can ever be overcome. Our leaders failed to make the case plain because of their shortsightedness, and our people cannot agree what is the best course. To remain will take great sacrifice for our people, something we have done when aroused to unified effort. The problem is many of us don't feel it is worth the trouble. Sending in troops year in and year out will not get it done, but the average American will not abide a permanent occupation.

PS: I realize that our discussion has been somewhat off topic, but it is a very good debate yes?

[Kralizec]

Well, save for the Kurds, every Iraqi I, my father, and his boss (my father is a lawyer at an immigration firm) have talked to said that their lives have been close to peaches-n'-cream during Saddam's regime. National Geographic reports the same. It was the best times Iraq has had. Everything was cheap, plentiful, and booming. Now? I doubt I need to comment. So that was OK, but when Russia decided to be the bad boy, and knock out a few teeth out of Georgia and withdraw that was bad?

Before the war with Iran it was the most modern country in the Arab world, even if the regime has rather heavy handed. After that war and the first gulf war afterwards, it was just a hole.

You didn't mention it, but it's safe to assume the people you talked to fled after Saddam was toppled. A year ago I met an Iraqi immigrant who fled 15 years ago and it wasn't because he didn't like peaches.

The way things are looking now, I believe future people will look back to current Iraq as a violent but relatively short interim period between a brutal dictatorship and a stable, more benign one.

[Hooahguy]

"best times iraq had"? tell that to the kurds. tell that the the families of the 400,000 people found in mass graves. tell that to the families of the 290,000 Iraqis that have "disappeared" under Saddam...

[Aemilius Paulus]

"best times iraq had"? tell that to the kurds. tell that the the families of the 400,000 people found in mass graves. tell that to the families of the 290,000 Iraqis that have "disappeared" under Saddam...

Please Hooah. You sound like a guy who barged in and rage-posted without reading anything. In my previous posts I explained my position and I do not care to repeat it to someone again because they failed to do what they were supposed to: read the thread, at least the OP and the last page.

In any case, to summarise it, going in and destroying the whole country, killing and causing the deaths tens of thousands of civilians is not a justification for anything. You did not go in because you wanted to spread democracy. No country is that good. You went in on your own selfish interests.

And who the *daisy* goes in a country and blows most of it in the name of democracy anyway? That is BS. Would you be willing to have your country blown apart, many people around you killed and have your country saddled with foreign occupiers all for a slight chance of a better government? *daisy* no! Then why the *daisy* do you think Iraqis would want that?? Easy for you to speak of them when you sit comfortable in your home, safe, with your parents on a job and all well-fed...

Nay. You went there because you had to have Saddam kiss your feet and he decided he no longer wanted to do so. You put him in power and supported him while he killed the Kurds just as you support other repressive but US-friendly regimes. You overlooked his Kurd-slaughtering until he broke relations with you and then you began dumping mud and slander on him. Not that he did not deserve it, but you see the point.

So I suggest you drop your argument. Not to mention, loads of other countries carry out real genocides, such as, most notably, Rwanda. And what did the USofA do? Nothing. No one did anything. And that was an occasion worthy of an intervention. Yet nothing was done.

[Hooahguy]

the only part i disagreed with you was the part about it being the best times iraq had. i disagree.

[Aemilius Paulus]

the only part i disagreed with you was the part about it being the best times iraq had. i disagree.

You honestly, truly believe Iraq is better off? Alright; go live there. I do reckon though the Iraqis are flooding my Dad's immigration law firm (he is a partner) for a reason though. Life in Iraq is quite rotten. Nothing on Earth like the fear of losing your loved ones or yourself to a random explosion at any time, be it a car bomb, truck bomb, people bomb, time bomb, or a roadside bomb.

Honestly. Think about it. But then again, you cannot. You are not old enough to have a wife and a couple of children and then live with the thought of losing them at any time. Siblings, parents, and relatives are one thing, but wife and children are many of tiers above. Ask Lemur. He has a family. I am certain his opinion is a bit (understatement) different on this matter.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Roadside bombs now and a better Iraq in a few years, or a network of underground torture chambers under the control of a permanent regime?

I'll take option one.

[Hooahguy]

You honestly, truly believe Iraq was better off? Alright; go live there. Life in Iraq was quite rotten. Nothing on Earth like the fear of losing your loved ones or yourself to Saddams secret police, or being dragged off yourself in the middle of the night to one of his torture cells, all for having an opinion.

Honestly. Think about it. But then again, you cannot. You are not old enough to have a wife and a couple of children and then live with the thought of losing them at any time. Siblings, parents, and relatives are one thing, but wife and children are many of tiers above. Ask Lemur. He has a family. I am certain his opinion is a bit (understatement) different on this matter.