"George Bush our hero!"

[chevy]

Originally posted by binaryDigit
I think you misread the original post. "George Bush our hero" was shouted by the Iraqi people (well some of them anyway). The original poster wasn't making a comment about GB being his/her hero (he may well be, but the post was about the Iraqi's). To say that this is the same or similar as the forced piety of Saddam is a stretch of the highest order.

Don't forget the same man, the same throat, said "Saddam our hero" one week ago. What will he say tomorrow ?

[Cat]

Dear kermit64, exept for the very last paragraph I appreciated your post a lot! Unlike other contributors to the discussion (and regrettably sometimes myself), you come with facts and reasons instead of insults and ignorance.

If Iraq is on the brink of anything, right now that would be the brink of a humanitarian disaster: vast portions of its infrastructure (electricity, water) have been destroyed. Hospitals can barely handle the wounded and dying. People in the streets are looting public institutions like universities. It is the prime responsibility of the invader, according to international law, to care for the safety and well being of the citizens of the occupied territory. This means to bring law and order, something the US shouldn't dislike.

The United States of America have literally violated an international agreement, whihc they for once have signed and ratified, of the UN, which states that no country is to attack another unless provoked. You can laugh at me, you can ridicule me, yell at me and call me names, but you cannot change the facts. Irak did not in any way provoke or menace the USA. The mere suspicion of the possibility that there could be some kind of weapons that maybe could be used against the US, is in no way a sufficient reason to attack and invade another country. Especially not when the United Nations are actively undertaking investigatons to prove or disprove the charges. The unilateral action of the US is therefore basically unjust. It would be a comparable situation as when you decide to charge a man in court with beating his wife, but then instead of waiting for the verdict, shooting him. If the man indeed hit his wife, he should be punished, but not by you, but by the established law, which has the authority to do so.

If you like big numbers, I can give you big numbers. Saddam has killed thousands of kurds, but the first gulf war had as a consequence the death of at least 200.000 children.

BTW. Nice post too, chevy. Very true.

[binaryDigit]

Originally posted by chevy
Don't forget the same man, the same throat, said "Saddam our hero" one week ago. What will he say tomorrow ?

Depends on why he said what he said. If one week ago he was afraid to have his head bashed in by Saddams henchmen while today he is jubilant over not having that cloud over him, then tomorrow he'll say "who the hell is running this place and how can I get my family some food and clothing".

If last week he feared as above, and now today he fears the US soldiders, then he will say "<insert current "leader" here> our hero".

etc, etc.

Which one you think is most likely depends I guess on how cynical/negative/positive/idealistic you are. Which one is actually the truth will remain to be seen, and obviously they'll be those that fall into all the camps, which one holds the majority will be the bigger question.

[toast]

In his last book, Kissinger explains how the US liberated South-East Asia during WWII, then how they completely f*cked up the construction of new peaceful, stable, democratic regimes there, thanks to Mc Arthur.

There is nothing 'heroic' in winning an unequal war against a disarmed country. What would be 'heroic' would be to build the first muslim democracy, just like democratic Germany was. This has already been attempted in 1991, in Afgh., in Palestine, in many places, and always failed.

[chevy]

Please allow me a pint of humor in a sad world.

http://www.globecartoon.com/war/

Luckily they are still plenty of nice people in this world.

[binaryDigit]

Originally posted by chevy
Please allow me a pint of humor in a sad world.

http://www.globecartoon.com/war/

Luckily they are still plenty of nice people in this world.

I fail to find the humour in that cartoon, whether your for the war or against. Perhaps you meant irony, for it does contain that.

If you are anti-war and find that cartoon "funny", then I'd suggest that your anti-war stance has nothing to do with humanity and everything to do with politics, and that would be the saddest of all.

[chevy]

Originally posted by binaryDigit
I fail to find the humour in that cartoon, whether your for the war or against. Perhaps you meant irony, for it does contain that.

If you are anti-war and find that cartoon "funny", then I'd suggest that your anti-war stance has nothing to do with humanity and everything to do with politics, and that would be the saddest of all.

Humor is not just funny and laugh, it's also another look at a situation, often opposing two sides of the same coin. Sometimes humor doesn't make me laugh, neither do poems, even if they are romantics. But they always show me the world from another eye.

(they are several cartoons, some funny, some not, if you follow the drop-down menu)

[fryke]

Originally posted by dixonbm
The US will be able to help Iraq form a democratic governmen and quickly rebuild the country. We will have a friendly democracy in the middle east with which we can use to further the US agenda.

I don't know what I fear more. A) The US realising that countries in the Middle East do not really _want_ to be democratised or B) the US 'going further' with their agenda of bringing war to the world.