<strong>To qoute you, how do you arrive at this conclusion? It would depend on the revolution wouldn't it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Iraq is a nation of downtrodden people, many of whom suffer from malnourishment and diesease (thanks, UN sanctions!) headed by a brutal dictator who maintains his power through political killings and torture.
Tell me, New, how would a revolution from the downtrodden against a military tyrant *not* be horrific and bloody?
No Bunge you miss my point. Why would the planners care if the "shields" were there? "Let's not destroy that silo, there's a guy down there with a tambourine and a deeply held belief that he is really important " I repeat , the target is not the Iraqi population, some will die , but then many French died being liberated in 1944 onwards.
There is a precedence for peacful revolutions to, several times over. Are you at all familiar with eastern Europe?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I mean in the context of Iraq. Saddam has slaughtered anyone who opposes him. That's the precedence, so I don't think a revolution will happen on its own and succeed. Hussein has been honing his oppression skills for about 30 years now. He's pretty good at it.
<strong>Seems warped to me that you all will criticize them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The reason I critisize them is because they let go of all control. When I and 14.999.999 others are used in Saddams propaganda as an example of how evil US is and how nice he himself is I can go out and voice my opinion against that. Its much more difficult when you sit in a city you know zip about and wants to protect someone and those who are to tell you how to do it have no interest in you as a person and no interest in those you want to protect but 100% intererst in something completly different.
People interested in risking their lifes for the Iraqi people should join the kurds or some other resistance group and go fight the rule of Saddam. Perhaps it would prevent the bloodbath that bombing large civilian cities from 30.000 feet up or 100 miles away always will be. The problem of course being that you risk that your group will be labeled as a terrorist group or as "illegal combatant" or someone fight you under the protection of the NATO umbrella. Three senarios not out of the question regarding the Kurds.
I mean in the context of Iraq. Saddam has slaughtered anyone who opposes him. That's the precedence, so I don't think a revolution will happen on its own and succeed. Hussein has been honing his oppression skills for about 30 years now. He's pretty good at it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So was Soviet and the countries in eastern europe.
<strong>I mean in the context of Iraq. Saddam has slaughtered anyone who opposes him. That's the precedence, so I don't think a revolution will happen on its own and succeed. Hussein has been honing his oppression skills for about 30 years now. He's pretty good at it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And this was not the case in, say, Poland?
Or take Romania, where the regime-change turned violent (though limited). Was not the regime of Ceausescu comparable to Saddam in a lot of ways?
A nation where political dissent is met with murder. I hate to say it New, but you sound very very sheltered when you propose peaceful revolution in Iraq.
<strong>No Bunge you miss my point. Why would the planners care if the "shields" were there? "Let's not destroy that silo, there's a guy down there with a tambourine and a deeply held belief that he is really important " I repeat , the target is not the Iraqi population, some will die , but then many French died being liberated in 1944 onwards.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I do get the point. I think you're missing mine though. The shields have gotten their anti-war message out. They most likely know the silos will still be blown up regardless.
And why would the planners care? The DON'T, but they should. When a Palestinian steps onto a bus with 4 Israeli troops and 30 civilians, he's a terrorist. When an American plane bombs a water treatment plant with zero military personel and 2 US Human Shields, what do we call the US Military?
Is the situation in Iraq anything like Eastern Europe at the end of the cold war? Was there the Solidarity movement? The Glastnost policy? Was there a cultural hatred of the infidel West? Was there a highly blakanized po[ulation in places like East Germany, Poland and the Czech Republic, where the fall of the Soviet Union had critical mass appeal? Well, there was the economic hardship no thanks to sanctions that only hurt the civilians of Iraq, but I've heard the economy is actually getting along just fine in Iraq these days.
Sure, it's not out of the question that there could be a popular revolt against Hussein that was successful. Is it a good idea to encourage that but not support it and watch tens of thousands die in the attempt, like what happened last time? Isn't that more cruel than just jumping our military in there and doing the job? While people in Iraq would resent us for encouraging this path and not helping, they would also be resentful of us doing the dirty work for us, so that's wash I think. What would really save the most lives, that is, of those who deserve to live?
There's no bloodless way out of this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Groverat, a slew of examples that show otherwise were just given. Why not incorporate those into your filing cabinet of facts and rethink your position?
A nation where political dissent is met with murder. I hate to say it New, but you sound very very sheltered when you propose peaceful revolution in Iraq.
There's no bloodless way out of this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
History shows us that it doesn't get much more bloody than when the US (or the old colonial powers) intervenes militarily to orchestrate a regime-change. History also shows us that regimes like this don't last.
It is the Iraqis business to change their government. And yes, I believe it could be done more or less without major bloodshed.
People interested in risking their lifes for the Iraqi people should join the kurds or some other resistance group and go fight the rule of Saddam. </strong><hr></blockquote>
But they are actually, unlike scott believes, anti-war. So joining a different resistance group does nothing to help them further their beliefs. It would be impossible to join a violent resistance and continue to advocate for a peaceful resolution.
You want to try to tell me that the Soviet change wasn't bloody?
I said there is no bloodless way of doing it, in no nation where a man like Saddam was in power was there a peaceful rebellion. What Eastern European nation had a ruler like Saddam when the regime-change took place? Especially one where the West has taken to killing civilians to motivate them to undertake the rebellion for themselves?
<strong>" I repeat , the target is not the Iraqi population, some will die , but then many French died being liberated in 1944 onwards.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The comparison is not accurate. French's people wishes to be liberate from invaders aka Germans. I never heard someone complaining about US bombing.
At the contrary and unfortunately, Iraq's people even those who are opposed to Saddam don't want a war. The only one who are ready to help are the kurds, at the only condition that the turkish do not enter in their territorie. The sad story is that many arab people prefer to live under a dictature rather than a democratia build by the US.
<strong>You want to try to tell me that the Soviet change wasn't bloody??</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I'm not saying every other regime change was, I'm saying they can be. And there are a lot of examples in South America and Asia as well.
[quote]<strong>I said there is no bloodless way of doing it, in no nation where a man like Saddam was in power was there a peaceful rebellion. What Eastern European nation had a ruler like Saddam when the regime-change took place?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Almost all of them, Romania would be the perfect example. Saddams secret police are nothing compared to Securtate.
[quote]<strong>Especially one where the West has taken to killing civilians to motivate them to undertake the rebellion for themselves?</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>The people who say that the protestors "hate America" or are "pro-Saddam" are off-base.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think there is an argument to be made that some of the "anti-war" "protestors" are pro-Saddam in the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" sense.
But as you said most of the force of the "anti-war" crowd is political. Theses are the same people that after 9-11 said it was caused by ... whatever there personal gripe with the world was.
I think there is an argument to be made that some of the "anti-war" "protestors" are pro-Saddam in the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" sense. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Try and make it then, it'll probably be shot down fairly easily.
Comments
<strong>To qoute you, how do you arrive at this conclusion? It would depend on the revolution wouldn't it?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Iraq is a nation of downtrodden people, many of whom suffer from malnourishment and diesease (thanks, UN sanctions!) headed by a brutal dictator who maintains his power through political killings and torture.
Tell me, New, how would a revolution from the downtrodden against a military tyrant *not* be horrific and bloody?
<strong>
Well, there is a precedence, several times over.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is a precedence for peacful revolutions to, several times over. Are you at all familiar with eastern Europe?
History is full of examples.
<strong>
There is a precedence for peacful revolutions to, several times over. Are you at all familiar with eastern Europe?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I mean in the context of Iraq. Saddam has slaughtered anyone who opposes him. That's the precedence, so I don't think a revolution will happen on its own and succeed. Hussein has been honing his oppression skills for about 30 years now. He's pretty good at it.
<strong>Seems warped to me that you all will criticize them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The reason I critisize them is because they let go of all control. When I and 14.999.999 others are used in Saddams propaganda as an example of how evil US is and how nice he himself is I can go out and voice my opinion against that. Its much more difficult when you sit in a city you know zip about and wants to protect someone and those who are to tell you how to do it have no interest in you as a person and no interest in those you want to protect but 100% intererst in something completly different.
People interested in risking their lifes for the Iraqi people should join the kurds or some other resistance group and go fight the rule of Saddam. Perhaps it would prevent the bloodbath that bombing large civilian cities from 30.000 feet up or 100 miles away always will be. The problem of course being that you risk that your group will be labeled as a terrorist group or as "illegal combatant" or someone fight you under the protection of the NATO umbrella. Three senarios not out of the question regarding the Kurds.
<strong>
I mean in the context of Iraq. Saddam has slaughtered anyone who opposes him. That's the precedence, so I don't think a revolution will happen on its own and succeed. Hussein has been honing his oppression skills for about 30 years now. He's pretty good at it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So was Soviet and the countries in eastern europe.
<strong>I mean in the context of Iraq. Saddam has slaughtered anyone who opposes him. That's the precedence, so I don't think a revolution will happen on its own and succeed. Hussein has been honing his oppression skills for about 30 years now. He's pretty good at it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And this was not the case in, say, Poland?
Or take Romania, where the regime-change turned violent (though limited). Was not the regime of Ceausescu comparable to Saddam in a lot of ways?
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: New ]</p>
Peaceful revolution? In Iraq?
heh
heheheh
A nation where political dissent is met with murder. I hate to say it New, but you sound very very sheltered when you propose peaceful revolution in Iraq.
There's no bloodless way out of this.
<strong>No Bunge you miss my point. Why would the planners care if the "shields" were there? "Let's not destroy that silo, there's a guy down there with a tambourine and a deeply held belief that he is really important " I repeat , the target is not the Iraqi population, some will die , but then many French died being liberated in 1944 onwards.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I do get the point. I think you're missing mine though. The shields have gotten their anti-war message out. They most likely know the silos will still be blown up regardless.
And why would the planners care? The DON'T, but they should. When a Palestinian steps onto a bus with 4 Israeli troops and 30 civilians, he's a terrorist. When an American plane bombs a water treatment plant with zero military personel and 2 US Human Shields, what do we call the US Military?
Sure, it's not out of the question that there could be a popular revolt against Hussein that was successful. Is it a good idea to encourage that but not support it and watch tens of thousands die in the attempt, like what happened last time? Isn't that more cruel than just jumping our military in there and doing the job? While people in Iraq would resent us for encouraging this path and not helping, they would also be resentful of us doing the dirty work for us, so that's wash I think. What would really save the most lives, that is, of those who deserve to live?
<strong>
There's no bloodless way out of this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Groverat, a slew of examples that show otherwise were just given. Why not incorporate those into your filing cabinet of facts and rethink your position?
<strong>New:
Peaceful revolution? In Iraq?
heh
heheheh
A nation where political dissent is met with murder. I hate to say it New, but you sound very very sheltered when you propose peaceful revolution in Iraq.
There's no bloodless way out of this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
History shows us that it doesn't get much more bloody than when the US (or the old colonial powers) intervenes militarily to orchestrate a regime-change. History also shows us that regimes like this don't last.
It is the Iraqis business to change their government. And yes, I believe it could be done more or less without major bloodshed.
<strong>
People interested in risking their lifes for the Iraqi people should join the kurds or some other resistance group and go fight the rule of Saddam. </strong><hr></blockquote>
But they are actually, unlike scott believes, anti-war. So joining a different resistance group does nothing to help them further their beliefs. It would be impossible to join a violent resistance and continue to advocate for a peaceful resolution.
I said there is no bloodless way of doing it, in no nation where a man like Saddam was in power was there a peaceful rebellion. What Eastern European nation had a ruler like Saddam when the regime-change took place? Especially one where the West has taken to killing civilians to motivate them to undertake the rebellion for themselves?
<strong>" I repeat , the target is not the Iraqi population, some will die , but then many French died being liberated in 1944 onwards.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The comparison is not accurate. French's people wishes to be liberate from invaders aka Germans. I never heard someone complaining about US bombing.
At the contrary and unfortunately, Iraq's people even those who are opposed to Saddam don't want a war. The only one who are ready to help are the kurds, at the only condition that the turkish do not enter in their territorie. The sad story is that many arab people prefer to live under a dictature rather than a democratia build by the US.
<strong>You want to try to tell me that the Soviet change wasn't bloody??</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I'm not saying every other regime change was, I'm saying they can be. And there are a lot of examples in South America and Asia as well.
[quote]<strong>I said there is no bloodless way of doing it, in no nation where a man like Saddam was in power was there a peaceful rebellion. What Eastern European nation had a ruler like Saddam when the regime-change took place?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Almost all of them, Romania would be the perfect example. Saddams secret police are nothing compared to Securtate.
[quote]<strong>Especially one where the West has taken to killing civilians to motivate them to undertake the rebellion for themselves?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Bingo! Now you get it.
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: New ]</p>
<strong>The people who say that the protestors "hate America" or are "pro-Saddam" are off-base.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think there is an argument to be made that some of the "anti-war" "protestors" are pro-Saddam in the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" sense.
But as you said most of the force of the "anti-war" crowd is political. Theses are the same people that after 9-11 said it was caused by ... whatever there personal gripe with the world was.
<strong>
I think there is an argument to be made that some of the "anti-war" "protestors" are pro-Saddam in the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" sense. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Try and make it then, it'll probably be shot down fairly easily.
<strong>
Try and make it then, it'll probably be shot down fairly easily.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh, honestly, this is surely true even if those numbers are miniscule.