War through Iraqi eyes

[|MP|Buccaneer]

Few questions for you then Loudnotes.

1) how many revolts has Saddam has Saddam put down so far?  (you better know of at least one).

2) how many revolts have been unsuccessful because the everyday citizen had no weapons at all (not even hand guns) with which to fight?  How many tyrants like Saddam have put these revolutions down?  All because nobody came to their aid.

3) how many revolutions that were successful, wouldn't have been without the aid of forign countries?

[The Ghost of Bondo]

Ok, I don't take the threat of casualties as a reasonable excuse against the Iraqis having a revolution, it isn't like the Revolutionary War was blood free except those running the colonies.

As for foreign aid...I can think of quite a few coups that didn't require outside aid (think of the French running ole Louix XVI off to the guillotines).  Let them eat cake...but the cake wasn't being provided by another country.

[cookie]

Louis XIV was an inept, debt ridden royal. He had no real authority- hell, the people caught him trying to flee the country. He wasn't exactly armed and ready to put down any sort of revolt sort of a playground uprisal... unlike mr hussein  

[Cossack]

Russian Revolution had no foreign assistance, in fact the whole international community was against it. With good reason if you ask me.

Ethiopian Revolution- Halle Sallasie

Iranian Revolution- again much of the world community was against this one.

Hey cookie what about the Texan Revolution? I guess that is a bit sketchy the US may have supplied us a bit, but not to my knowledge.

There was also the Young Turks Revolution.

Yup I can name a few that didnt require foreign help, or atleast very miniscule amounts ie funding.

[[V] Silverblade]

How could they make any type of decision like that, much less try to take any sort of action to enforce that decision?!  I find it just a wee bit unlikely that Saddam would react pleasantly to an Iraqi telling him they would like a change to, for example, democracy.  Do you think they have any choice whatsoever?  How can you even think that the people of Iraq have it OK?  They live under a ruler who wouldn't lose a night's sleep by torturing you for speaking a word against him.  Even if they sincerely wanted to challenge him, they would not win.  To not support him is to die.  You don't think this shit isn't cause for intervention?  And if they honestly don't think there is anything wrong with the situation they're in, well...they probably don't know how good the rest of us have it, do they?

im not saying saddam is a cool and friendly guy. im just saying its not americas decision either. if it was they had to attack like 50 other countrys as well, bc saddam is not the only dictator on this planet. saddam was/is the best controlled dictator though. and he has lots of oil...

and all these arguments that saddam killed so and so many people, do any of u have a clue how much people were killed by the us in past conflicts? hundreds of thousands, all over the world. i dont consider usa a peaceful country in any way...

and, cobra, do u think a democracy based on bombs will work just fine? i dont think so...

and america is creating another 1000 bin ladens right now, but im sure u will find out soon enough...

peace!

[The Ghost of Bondo]

The reasons for the war are odd in that they apply to so many other countries as well, but the US selectively chooses to invoke them in this case.

Having WMD...loads of countries, including the US, Israel, etc. (don't bother with the probation nonsense, that isn't the point of this statement)

Selling WMD to terrorists...North Korea and Iran are apparently on this list, but N. Korea is to strong to attack, so we just pick on the relatively weaker Iraq.  Not to mention that Russia in its break down from he USSR has been the source of the most WMD most likely just because they couldn't control them well.

Violation of UN resolution (this is where the probation would come in)...loads of counries, especially Israel violate UN resolutions, but you don't see us invading Israel (or perhaps stop giving them weapons?)

Links to terrorism...Saudi Arabia and Kuwait have more citizens participatin and funding terrorism that Iraq from those that we've seen, it isn't limited to Iraq by any means.

Threat to US...the threat to the US was, in my opinion, very transparent to begin with, Saddam hadn't really challanged the US's security at any point that he has been in power, we have just gotten involved.

Liberation from dictator...Saudi Arabia is a dictatorship, so are countless other countries

Dictator killing citizens...just as there are countless countries with dictatorships, many use their power to harm civilians.

Oil...Saudia Arabia has more oil than Iraq

"He tried to kill my daddy"...hmm, this one applies only to Saddam...perhaps we have a winner in the reason parade.


So why, other than revenge is Iraq singled out as a target...I certainly can't see the reason.

[Cobra]

Uhh...
Didn't mean to offend you there, LoudNotes.  My intent was not to sound "arrogant", "superior", and "condescending"...I just think saying "let the Iraqis handle Saddam" is something easier said than done.  It's my opinion.  Please take it as just that, not a personal attack.

As was mentioned, it seems to me that Saddam is more than capable of nullifying resistance from Iraqi civilians.  I still don't think overthrowing the regime is a possibility for them...unarmed civilians would have one hell of a time staging a revolt against the Republican Guard.

And no, there probably wouldn't be enough people who would want to even attempt such a revolt.  They may honestly not want to, or they may not be willing for fear of what might be done to them if they did try...I don't know.

I don't know if how the US decided to handle the problem was right, either.  I never claimed it was.  I think some type of intervention was necessary.  The things Saddam does are not OK.  Do you agree?