Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Skorp1o on June 11, 2014, 01:38:21 AM
-
Insurgents Seize Iraq's Second Biggest City http://news.uk.msn.com/in-pictures/insurgents-capture-mosul
Saddam was actually mild in religious beliefs (liked alcohol, hookers, rolex's and cigars...), he would have crushed any threats to stability and security as he knew how to control and rule the country, democracy is not a suitable ideology for all cultures and we must accept that, by forcing it on other cultures we've become the dictators, we weakened the country and now it's become another Afghanistan.
(http://www.corbisimages.com/images/Corbis-42-20464423.jpg?size=67&uid=2e78fccd-6eae-480f-96d1-9e5d050ab922)
-
same applies to Libya. And it is all about resources.
Bad miscalculation with Syria though.
-
same applies to Libya. And it is all about resources.
Bad miscalculation with Syria though.
dated a Syrian girl few years back. She was of the Christian type over there. Said family basically got threatened out of the country. Place is seriously fucked up one of the worst places to live now.
-
Removed, yes. It's the how and when that was terrible.
-
same applies to Libya. And it is all about resources.
x2
Also Egypt, and Ukraine.
-
Iraq was better off with Saddam.
-
x2
Also Egypt, and Ukraine.
Not much in common. Lybia and Irak, some similarities. But Egypt and Ukraine, absolutely nothing to do with Irak. Syria, whole different story all together.
-
Not much in common. Lybia and Irak, some similarities. But Egypt and Ukraine, absolutely nothing to do with Irak. Syria, whole different story all together.
They're all cases of the US toppling the legitimate government allowing something far worse to take power.
-
Syria, whole different story all together.
al-Assad is a moderate, I don't even think he's a true Muslim much like Saddam.
-
They're all cases of the US toppling the legitimate government allowing something far worse to take power.
Irak was an invasion, years after having had the opportunity to get rid of him and years after supporting him also. Lybia was never supported by the US, never backed into a war like the Iraq/Iran war (leading to the Koweit invasion in fact). Ukraine???? What is there in common as the Russians did as just meddling there then European countries and the US. And then again, Syria is a totally different thing; right now, most people are hoping for El-Assad to take control back though no one wants to admit it publicly.
-
Irak was an invasion, years after having had the opportunity to get rid of him and years after supporting him also. Lybia was never supported by the US, never backed into a war like the Iraq/Iran war (leading to the Koweit invasion in fact). Ukraine???? What is there in common as the Russians did as just meddling there then European countries and the US. And then again, Syria is a totally different thing; right now, most people are hoping for El-Assad to take control back though no one wants to admit it publicly.
The legitimate governments of both Libya and Ukraine were toppled with the backing and support of the west (like so many other countries).
Libya is now overrun by terrorists, and the same thing is probable in Ukraine.
-
al-Assad is a moderate, I don't even think he's a true Muslim much like Saddam.
Saddam was not a religious man at first, he's like El-Assad a member of the Baas party which is a socialist party originally close to the USSR. Syria always has a strained relationship with the US but Hafez (Bachar's father) was a strong politician and he knew how to play his cards so for a long time he was hated, feared and respected by the US and Israel. Saddam, totally different matter. From pro-russian, he becam an ally of the US when the Iranian revolution broke. He was seen as an obstacle to radical Islam for a long time.
-
Saddam was not a religious man at first, he's like El-Assad a member of the Baas party which is a socialist party originally close to the USSR. Syria always has a strained relationship with the US but Hafez (Bachar's father) was a strong politician and he knew how to play his cards so for a long time he was hated, feared and respected by the US and Israel. Saddam, totally different matter. From pro-russian, he becam an ally of the US when the Iranian revolution broke. He was seen as an obstacle to radical Islam for a long time.
Yes, but the fact is they both kept the terrorists out and the religious lunatics in check.
We've turned Iraq into a breeding ground for terrorists, and now Obama and McCain want to fight alongside Al-Qaeda against the legitimate government of Syria.
-
The legitimate governments of both Libya and Ukraine (and Iraq, and Egypt were toppled with the backing and support of the west (like so many other countries).
Libya is now overrun by terrorists, and the same thing is probable in Ukraine.
There was nothing legitimate in Ukraine, not this government, nor the previous or the one before.
-
There was nothing legitimate in Ukraine, not this government, nor the previous or the one before.
Viktor Yanukovych and the previous government were legitimately elected, democratically. They were overthrown by a very small minority of radicals backed by the EU.
Just like Iraq and Libya, if the west gets its way Ukraine will be handed over to radicals.
-
Look, when Iraqi terrorists blew up the WTC and saddam stockpiled chemical weapons, he sealed his own fate. .
-
Look, when Iraqi terrorists blew up the WTC and saddam stockpiled chemical weapons, he sealed his own fate. .
Good point ;D
-
Yes, but the fact is they both kept the terrorists out and the religious lunatics in check.
We've turned Iraq into a breeding ground for terrorists, and now Obama and McCain want to fight alongside Al-Qaeda against the legitimate government of Syria.
Exactly! One minute we are apparently fighting against Islamic extremism, the next minute, we are siding with them against the moderates (Assad).
-
Viktor Yanukovych and the previous government were legitimately elected, democratically. They were overthrown by a very small minority of radicals backed by the EU.
Just like Iraq and Libya, if the west gets its way Ukraine will be handed over to radicals.
You really think Yanukovitch's election was legit? That Putin didn't interfere one bit? C'mon, let's be serious, it's not because the US and others do something that their foes don't use the exact same methods. Legitimacy is a very vague notion when you're talking politics even in "old" democracies (remember that first GW Bush election?). The problem lies elsewhere then in what you call legitimacy. It's more a matter of short-sighted foreign politics which always ends up in casus belli.
-
Here is a transcript sent to Saddam by Bush, found in wikileaks;
"I don't take kindly to disrespect. not on the internet, not in person, not in a grocery store parking lot, not in like at walmart, not in a restaurant, not at the beach, not at the dry cleaners... anywhere.
ppl talk about the 'pussyfication' of America, yet they run their mouths thinking they won't get slapped and get their arm broken in front of their friends.
spent many yrs in a place where if you talk slick and say something out of line to somebody, you know that when you say it, you better be ready for what happens. most ppl here in the 'real world', aren't ready for what could happen.. and run their mouths like the world is a make believe cartoon. despite wearing nice slacks, polished shoes and a nice shirt, the guy you steal that parking spot from at the grocery store and proceed to flip off, may have just gotten out of prison and will have no problem identifying they bitch in you and proceed to teach you a lesson by taking you down to the ground and kicking out your teeth before you even know what happened.
the guy who's willing to go the furthest, wins. if you're not willing to go all the way, it's best you keep your mouth shut and move on, and make it to the next day."
-
Here is a transcript sent to Saddam by Bush, found in wikileaks;
"I don't take kindly to disrespect. not on the internet, not in person, not in a grocery store parking lot, not in like at walmart, not in a restaurant, not at the beach, not at the dry cleaners... anywhere.
ppl talk about the 'pussyfication' of America, yet they run their mouths thinking they won't get slapped and get their arm broken in front of their friends.
spent many yrs in a place where if you talk slick and say something out of line to somebody, you know that when you say it, you better be ready for what happens. most ppl here in the 'real world', aren't ready for what could happen.. and run their mouths like the world is a make believe cartoon. despite wearing nice slacks, polished shoes and a nice shirt, the guy you steal that parking spot from at the grocery store and proceed to flip off, may have just gotten out of prison and will have no problem identifying they bitch in you and proceed to teach you a lesson by taking you down to the ground and kicking out your teeth before you even know what happened.
the guy who's willing to go the furthest, wins. if you're not willing to go all the way, it's best you keep your mouth shut and move on, and make it to the next day."
lol
-
Here is a transcript sent to Saddam by Bush, found in wikileaks;
"I don't take kindly to disrespect. not on the internet, not in person, not in a grocery store parking lot, not in like at walmart, not in a restaurant, not at the beach, not at the dry cleaners... anywhere.
ppl talk about the 'pussyfication' of America, yet they run their mouths thinking they won't get slapped and get their arm broken in front of their friends.
spent many yrs in a place where if you talk slick and say something out of line to somebody, you know that when you say it, you better be ready for what happens. most ppl here in the 'real world', aren't ready for what could happen.. and run their mouths like the world is a make believe cartoon. despite wearing nice slacks, polished shoes and a nice shirt, the guy you steal that parking spot from at the grocery store and proceed to flip off, may have just gotten out of prison and will have no problem identifying they bitch in you and proceed to teach you a lesson by taking you down to the ground and kicking out your teeth before you even know what happened.
the guy who's willing to go the furthest, wins. if you're not willing to go all the way, it's best you keep your mouth shut and move on, and make it to the next day."
(http://media.tumblr.com/36e287534a77d919e68e5a68d72fba15/tumblr_inline_mmhwb6rVbm1qz4rgp.png)
-
No.
The Americans and British killed far more in Iraq and led to far more suffering than Saddam. And it was American led sanctions which led to the deteriorating of their economy.
With regards to Kuwait, this is an artificial country with a British created monarchy with no historical basis and led by absolutist religious fanatics.
-
"Here is a transcript sent to Saddam by Bush, found in wikileaks;"
Damn, really got me reading the next line on that one....haha.
-
"Here is a transcript sent to Saddam by Bush, found in wikileaks;"
Damn, really got me reading the next line on that one....haha.
He masked it well! :D
-
I enjoyed the Video of his Hanging.. this is enough reason...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/16/newsid_4304000/4304853.stm
-
Removed, yes. It's the how and when that was terrible.
x2
-
As Americans, we HAVE to have a boogie man. This fell was no threat to the west and Bush knew that. But he spoke a funny language and didn't look like us, so fuck him. Plus it gave Halliburton and others a chance to make a few bucks, so double fuck him :)
-
Much worse rulers in the world today.
It was a cowardly and ridiculous move by Bush and the US may never recover from the fall out. At this point the international community laughs when the US talks about another country i.e. russia, breaking international law. The US invaded a sovereign country just because, destroyed it and turned it into a fertile breeding ground for terrorists.
How about the US invade a country with a truly fucked up leader that blacks out communication with the outside world and makes all his "subjects" worship him .. while commiting heinous acts whenever he feels like it because there is no international oversight... Invade North Korea ;D.. yeah, that will never happen. they got Nukes.
The US is nothing but a bully and we all know bullies never ever pick on someone their own size. Its sad what this country has turned to. And for what its worth, the US is a cesspool of corruption. The entire government is bought and paid for by monied interests. But what are you gonna do right? Type about it? :-\
-
As Americans, we HAVE to have a boogie man. This fell was no threat to the west and Bush knew that. But he spoke a funny language and didn't look like us, so fuck him. Plus it gave Halliburton and others a chance to make a few bucks, so double fuck him :)
yes very true... we all know there were other motives here as well.. Money and Greed.
-
As Americans, we HAVE to have a boogie man. This fell was no threat to the west and Bush knew that. But he spoke a funny language and didn't look like us, so fuck him. Plus it gave Halliburton and others a chance to make a few bucks, so double fuck him :)
Hey, nothing sells (shitty) domestic policy like foreign wars. PolySci 101. ;D
-
How about the US invade a country with a truly fucked up leader that blacks out communication with the outside world and makes all his "subjects" worship him .. while commiting heinous acts whenever he feels like it because there is no international oversight... Invade North Korea ;D.. yeah, that will never happen. they got Nukes.
Nothing to gain in North Korea. The country is of very little importance on a geo-strategic level. Iraq: much different, specially back then. Remember this was post-9/11. Americans suddenly understood they fucked up big time in Afghanistan (helping the Taiibans over the Northern Alliance) and that their dear Saoudi (and Qatari) friends were the main funders of international terrorism (they still are and still got us by our oil-dependant balls). Remember that most of the Persian Gulf "Kingdoms" are British-drawn imaginary countries built on the scraps of the Ottoman Empire. Iraq, like Syria, does have some kind of historical meaning and moreover has a real population (above 20 million back when the war started). With unreliable allies with very little real structures (Saoudi Arabia's population is 2/3 foreign workers-Qatar is 1,6 million foreigners for 300 000 locals- most foreigners being almost slaves). It suddenly sounded like a great idea to bring back into the game an important country like Iraq. Americans thought that this would be a piece of cake and that they would be welcomed as saviors. Naivety and cynicism don't really work together.
-
Iraq is plagued with tribalist and sectarian strife, an uneducated population constrained by limited cognitive competences, weak institutions, and no effective force for internal security, among other things.
The country's only hope is a strong-willed military man who can take control and mobilize support, maintaining order via distinctly non-democratic means and yet who will be amenable to Western influence if only for pragmatic reasons. Hmm -- that sounds familiar for some reason.
-
Much worse rulers in the world today.
It was a cowardly and ridiculous move by Bush and the US may never recover from the fall out. At this point the international community laughs when the US talks about another country i.e. russia, breaking international law. The US invaded a sovereign country just because, destroyed it and turned it into a fertile breeding ground for terrorists.
How about the US invade a country with a truly fucked up leader that blacks out communication with the outside world and makes all his "subjects" worship him .. while commiting heinous acts whenever he feels like it because there is no international oversight... Invade North Korea ;D.. yeah, that will never happen. they got Nukes.
The US is nothing but a bully and we all know bullies never ever pick on someone their own size. Its sad what this country has turned to. And for what its worth, the US is a cesspool of corruption. The entire government is bought and paid for by monied interests. But what are you gonna do right? Type about it? :-\
What shithole country that doesn't matter are u from?
-
Look, when Iraqi terrorists blew up the WTC and saddam stockpiled chemical weapons, he sealed his own fate. .
um..... the "terrorists" where NOT from Iraq....
read much? ??? ???
-
um..... the "terrorists" where NOT from Iraq....
-
Look, when Iraqi terrorists blew up the WTC and saddam stockpiled chemical weapons, he sealed his own fate. .
What?!?! I don't know if this is a deliberate piece of troll bait, ...or the product of USA public education. ???
-
Iraq is plagued with tribalist and sectarian strife, an uneducated population constrained by limited cognitive competences, weak institutions, and no effective force for internal security, among other things.
The country's only hope is a strong-willed military man who can take control and mobilize support, maintaining order via distinctly non-democratic means and yet who will be amenable to Western influence if only for pragmatic reasons. Hmm -- that sounds familiar for some reason.
If you think Saddam was that, you are mistaken. Saddam was a puppet from the get-go and one of the most idiotic leaders in the region (far from Hafez El-Assad for example). The only thing that made his regime stable for more than ten years was the embargo after the Koweit war (which actually worsened the situation you describe at first in your post). His "decision" to attack Iran (backed by the US, GB, France, Saoudi Arabia and Koweit) was the dumbest move one can imagine. The situation the country is into right now is a direct consequence of his decisions.
-
But.........had the US left maybe a BDE of stuff and dudes around Bagdad, none of this would be happening. 1 Combat aviation BN with apaches and lift would be enough to have kept these guys inside Syria. With an ROE that allowed air to hit their camps, this could be avoided.
-
Iraq is plagued with tribalist and sectarian strife, an uneducated population constrained by limited cognitive competences, weak institutions, and no effective force for internal security, among other things.
The country's only hope is a strong-willed military man who can take control and mobilize support, maintaining order via distinctly non-democratic means and yet who will be amenable to Western influence if only for pragmatic reasons. Hmm -- that sounds familiar for some reason.
Great post. You're absolutely right. I was going to write a nearly identical statement before I caught your post.
-
Yes, it was right to remove Saddam.
What was wrong was electing an idiot like obamatheclown to the presidency.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-once-called-iraq-one-obamas-great-achievments_794909.html
As Iraq falls apart, it's worth remembering Vice President Joe Biden hailing that country as one of President Obama's "great achievements" in a 2010 interview with then CNN host Larry King:
"I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government," said Biden.
"I spent -- I've been there 17 times now. I go about every two months -- three months. I know every one of the major players in all of the segments of that society. It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."
-
LMFAO - expect silence from the libfags on this one
Yes, it was right to remove Saddam.
What was wrong was electing an idiot like obamatheclown to the presidency.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/biden-once-called-iraq-one-obamas-great-achievments_794909.html
As Iraq falls apart, it's worth remembering Vice President Joe Biden hailing that country as one of President Obama's "great achievements" in a 2010 interview with then CNN host Larry King:
"I am very optimistic about -- about Iraq. I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration. You're going to see 90,000 American troops come marching home by the end of the summer. You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government," said Biden.
"I spent -- I've been there 17 times now. I go about every two months -- three months. I know every one of the major players in all of the segments of that society. It's impressed me. I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."
-
But.........had the US left maybe a BDE of stuff and dudes around Bagdad, none of this would be happening. 1 Combat aviation BN with apaches and lift would be enough to have kept these guys inside Syria. With an ROE that allowed air to hit their camps, this could be avoided.
Strategically, does it necessarily make sense to prop up a dictatorial Iranian satellite (most experts agree that that is what the Shia-dominated Maliki regime is) in the region? Personally, would you want to die for it?
If you think Saddam was that, you are mistaken. Saddam was a puppet from the get-go and one of the most idiotic leaders in the region (far from Hafez El-Assad for example). The only thing that made his regime stable for more than ten years was the embargo after the Koweit war (which actually worsened the situation you describe at first in your post). His "decision" to attack Iran (backed by the US, GB, France, Saoudi Arabia and Koweit) was the dumbest move one can imagine. The situation the country is into right now is a direct consequence of his decisions.
Whether Saddam was "idiotic" or not, the power structure he built and led maintained the functional integrity of the colonial fiction known as Iraq for a quarter of a century -- and seemingly would have continued to do so absent Western intervention -- in addition to serving as a bulwark against a rising Iran, our putative opponent in the region. Look at what happened the moment we dissolved that power structure: is this not evidence that it was preserving a modicum of stability?
He was also clearly amenable to Western influence as evinced by our relationship with him right up until his invasion of Kuwait.
Can you clarify why you think the 1990's sanctions enhanced stability in Iraq?
-
Strategically, does it necessarily make sense to prop up a dictatorial Iranian satellite (most experts agree that that is what the Shia-dominated Maliki regime is) in the region? Personally, would you want to die for it?
Whether Saddam was "idiotic" or not, the power structure he built and led maintained the functional integrity of the colonial fiction known as Iraq for a quarter of a century -- and seemingly would have continued to do so absent Western intervention -- in addition to serving as a bulwark against a rising Iran, our putative opponent in the region. Look at what happened the moment we dissolved that power structure: is this not evidence that it was preserving a modicum of stability?
He was also clearly amenable to Western influence as evinced by our relationship with him right up until his invasion of Kuwait.
Can you clarify why you think the 1990's sanctions enhanced stability in Iraq?
I really can't help but agree. you really can't argue against the fact that he did stabilize the region to simply because of how unstable he was. and they all knew that shit. he didn't have respect he had fear. and fear fucking works.
The diplomatic relations that everyone wants to have with the Middle East are just never going to happen. We should have a business relationship with them, nothing more. But that will NEVER happen. There's no good answer to what we should ever be doing over there in my opinion.
-
Yes, but the fact is they both kept the terrorists out and the religious lunatics in check.
We've turned Iraq into a breeding ground for terrorists, and now Obama and McCain want to fight alongside Al-Qaeda against the legitimate government of Syria.
Yep. Agreed
We should have never went into Iraq.
-
Yep. Agreed
We should have never went into Iraq.
what reason(s) did we go into Iraq, Oz?
-
what reason(s) did we go into Iraq, Oz?
Take your pick.
-
what reason(s) did we go into Iraq, Oz?
To rid the world of an evil tyrant
Protect America from WMDs
Spread democracy
Obviously. :D
-
To rid the world of an evil tyrant
Protect America from WMDs
Spread democracy
Obviously. :D
Secure Oil reserves
-
Strategically, does it necessarily make sense to prop up a dictatorial Iranian satellite (most experts agree that that is what the Shia-dominated Maliki regime is) in the region? Personally, would you want to die for it?
Whether Saddam was "idiotic" or not, the power structure he built and led maintained the functional integrity of the colonial fiction known as Iraq for a quarter of a century -- and seemingly would have continued to do so absent Western intervention -- in addition to serving as a bulwark against a rising Iran, our putative opponent in the region. Look at what happened the moment we dissolved that power structure: is this not evidence that it was preserving a modicum of stability?
He was also clearly amenable to Western influence as evinced by our relationship with him right up until his invasion of Kuwait.
Can you clarify why you think the 1990's sanctions enhanced stability in Iraq?
Simple: look at Cuba, North Korea, Iran from the moment the recent sanctions. Shortage of any kind (food, medicine, etc...) is always a great opportunity for dictators. People don't rebel when the situation is at its worse. French Revolution 101: you need an uppercoming (middle?) class to have a change in structure. My point being, as a reply to your first post, that what made Saddam friendly to the West is what a few years after made him our foe and that what is happening right now is not "happening because" he's no longer in charge but because he has been in charge for so long. I'm not saying the US have no responsability in this but his reign has been a major factor.
-
What?!?! I don't know if this is a deliberate piece of troll bait, ...or the product of USA public education. ???
He was trying to be funny. And it worked.
-
Dumbest decision Bush ever made. As we are seeing first hand, the middle east needs strongmen dictators. The alternative is much, much, much worse.
The muslim world is largely comprised of illiterate, inbred, impoverished scum. The only thing these "people" respect is strength. Better to have a stable dictator than a rag-tag bunch of ideological towel head terrorists. Both America and the world in general would be safer if Saddam was still in power.
-
Yes, it was right to remove Saddam.
What was wrong was electing an idiot like obamatheclown to the presidency.
Laughable pivot is laughable.
Besides, isn't it nearly time for you shift over to anti-Hillary mode?
Seek help, dude.
-
Simple: look at Cuba, North Korea, Iran from the moment the recent sanctions. Shortage of any kind (food, medicine, etc...) is always a great opportunity for dictators. People don't rebel when the situation is at its worse. French Revolution 101: you need an uppercoming (middle?) class to have a change in structure. My point being, as a reply to your first post, that what made Saddam friendly to the West is what a few years after made him our foe and that what is happening right now is not "happening because" he's no longer in charge but because he has been in charge for so long. I'm not saying the US have no responsability in this but his reign has been a major factor.
Can't our claims be consistent? Maybe Saddam's iron fist did successfully maintain the functional integrity of Iraq, and: the sanctions helped him in this endeavor, and his decisions have contributed to the current disarray upon his being removed from power.
At the very least, I suspect that we can agree that a serious option to consider is dissolving this colonial fiction and divvying the land along sectarian/ethnic lines: look at the relative peace and economic prosperity of the ethnically/religiously homogenous Kurdish region, for example (I'm sure there's more to the Kurds' success, but it's a start).
-
Can't our claims be consistent? Maybe Saddam's iron fist did successfully maintain the functional integrity of Iraq, and: the sanctions helped him in this endeavor, and his decisions have contributed to the current disarray upon his being removed from power.
At the very least, I suspect that we can agree that a serious option to consider is dissolving this colonial fiction and divvying the land along sectarian/ethnic lines: look at the relative peace and economic prosperity of the ethnically/religiously homogenous Kurdish region, for example (I'm sure there's more to the Kurds' success, but it's a start).
100% agreed. I've always said this was the poisonous gift the Brits and the French left, creating so called nations when it was just drawings on a map. Only countries with a true consistency: Iran (old synthetic empire) and Turkey. The worse to come: Saoudi Arabia (29 million people, 20 million foreign workhorses), Qatar (300 000 natives for 1,7 million foreigners). How long can this function?
-
The Kurds have seized Kirkuk and will hold it. The Pesh are competent and hate the arabs so no issues there. Any move further south then Bagdad and I think the Shia will be able to stop the current offensive. It won't be pretty for a while.
-
The wheels were put in motion before Bush took office...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act
...and things likely wouldn't have been much different had Gore been elected.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/why-al-gore-would-have-invaded-iraq-and-what-it-tells-us-about-syria/article14105322/