since when? the military in iraq is part of the problem. saddam and his cronies controls the military, or at least the ones that are worth a shit and i'm not even talking about the paramilitant fvckers. there can be no peace in the region, let alone within iraq without severly disabling the military factor. how do you think saddam has stayed in power for as long as he has, because he's a popular guy that's fun at parties?
The Saddam in New's head says: "What's that you people want to build a Democracy?! Why didn't you say so in the first place! Geez, I'm sorry about all that evil-dictator stuff, my bad. Here let me pack my bags and get out of your way."
Even I, improperly characterised as a whining, socialist, student would say that I did not LIKE the enormous bombing campaign but that use of force ELSEWHERE from CURRENT REPORTS is actually well restrained...
This is not as brutal as it will get when they have to enter Baghdad
Even I, improperly characterised as a whining, socialist, student would say that I did not LIKE the enormous bombing campaign but that use of force ELSEWHERE from CURRENT REPORTS is actually well restrained...
This is not as brutal as it will get when they have to enter Baghdad
agreed, its a quesiton that applies to many conflicts lately. Afghanistan in particular. As I said, the issue was brought to my attention by a lawyer specializing in international law. It's not something I invented out of my own whining, socialist head.
The Saddam in New's head says: "What's that you people want to build a Democracy?! Why didn't you say so in the first place! Geez, I'm sorry about all that evil-dictator stuff, my bad. Here let me pack my bags and get out of your way."
hey, get a sense of humor before you start making jokes, ok?
Maybe that's part of the explanation behind the firece resistence this time. The people of Baghdad probably know better than anyone the effects of the bombing 12 years ago. Imagine being "liberated" by the guys who killed your father...
I'm confused. Are you saying that Saddam is going to liberate them?
I'm saying it would be best if they were givien the chance to liberate themselves. And for that to happen certain conditions need to be present.
And those "certain conditions" that New is too timid to provide are what?
Come now New, let's not speak in safe generalities, from whence we will never assert risky opinions....put your balls on the table!
What are those "certain conditions"?
Sayest New:
I'm saying it would be best if they were givien the chance to liberate themselves. And for that to happen certain conditions need to be present.
I'll tell you.
The removal of the head of the snake. The removal of the regime that prevents the people from rising up. The removal of a regime that skins political prisoners alive, gases civilian populations and hangs a woman for waving to soldiers.
Comments
Originally posted by drewprops
Irresistable, immediate, overwhelming force is what you use.
Not if you want to build a democracy.
Originally posted by groverat
So is everyone convinced that the original question is idiotic beyond comprehension?
Have we gotten that settled?
Yes, I believe we have.
Originally posted by New
sorry
Apology accepted.
Irresistable, immediate, overwhelming force is what you use.
Not if you want to build a democracy.
As usual, other ideas for a democratic Iraq on a postcard.
Originally posted by New
Not if you want to build a democracy.
since when? the military in iraq is part of the problem. saddam and his cronies controls the military, or at least the ones that are worth a shit and i'm not even talking about the paramilitant fvckers. there can be no peace in the region, let alone within iraq without severly disabling the military factor. how do you think saddam has stayed in power for as long as he has, because he's a popular guy that's fun at parties?
Even I, improperly characterised as a whining, socialist, student would say that I did not LIKE the enormous bombing campaign but that use of force ELSEWHERE from CURRENT REPORTS is actually well restrained...
This is not as brutal as it will get when they have to enter Baghdad
Originally posted by Stoo
What I mean is how else could democracy be set up in Iraq? Not necessarily a completely rhetorical question.
There is actually another thread on this.
Originally posted by drewprops
New, please don't confuse war with nation-building.
I'm one of the few who don't.
Originally posted by DigitalMonkeyBoy
I'll just reply directly to the first post...
Even I, improperly characterised as a whining, socialist, student would say that I did not LIKE the enormous bombing campaign but that use of force ELSEWHERE from CURRENT REPORTS is actually well restrained...
This is not as brutal as it will get when they have to enter Baghdad
agreed, its a quesiton that applies to many conflicts lately. Afghanistan in particular. As I said, the issue was brought to my attention by a lawyer specializing in international law. It's not something I invented out of my own whining, socialist head.
Originally posted by dviant
The Saddam in New's head says: "What's that you people want to build a Democracy?! Why didn't you say so in the first place! Geez, I'm sorry about all that evil-dictator stuff, my bad. Here let me pack my bags and get out of your way."
hey, get a sense of humor before you start making jokes, ok?
Originally posted by New
Maybe that's part of the explanation behind the firece resistence this time. The people of Baghdad probably know better than anyone the effects of the bombing 12 years ago. Imagine being "liberated" by the guys who killed your father...
I'm confused. Are you saying that Saddam is going to liberate them?
Originally posted by Scott
I'm confused. Are you saying that Saddam is going to liberate them?
I'm saying it would be best if they were givien the chance to liberate themselves. And for that to happen certain conditions need to be present.
New
Senior Member
Posts: 1111
From: Oslo, Yurrup!
Finally New understands:
I'm saying it would be best if they were givien the chance to liberate themselves. And for that to happen certain conditions need to be present.
And those "certain conditions" that New is too timid to provide are what?
Come now New, let's not speak in safe generalities, from whence we will never assert risky opinions....put your balls on the table!
What are those "certain conditions"?
Sayest New:
I'm saying it would be best if they were givien the chance to liberate themselves. And for that to happen certain conditions need to be present.
I'll tell you.
The removal of the head of the snake. The removal of the regime that prevents the people from rising up. The removal of a regime that skins political prisoners alive, gases civilian populations and hangs a woman for waving to soldiers.
Fair war my ass.
Ass.