So it seems they got Saddam.

And in the meantime we've put that day off by taking a bad situation and making it even worse....

Again... this helps.... how exactly?

such resistance to an idea...

and your suggestion?

(just trying your style for a bit to see how you would expect me to respond)

your style = resist and contradict only

I knew a guy like that once..he was my roommate. One day he finally said "I know, I'm a jackass"

You're dodging the point here.

We KNEW. That is without any doubt.... that there was nobody at all that could replace Hussein that wasn't even more dangerous/tyrannical/whatever than he was.

What we've done now is topple a more or less impotent dictator and.... open the door for him to be replaced. By whom? Either the Shi'ites... (bad) or the Kurds. (Worse.)

Again.... how does this help ANYBODY other than our enemies?

To what idea? That tyranny should be resisted? I don't resist that idea. In fact historically it's been Bush's cronies that have been 'anti-interventionalist' except when it involves Commies.

Now let's see how you resist this idea? How about realizing that tyranny can be endured if it has to be.... and that fighting one tyranny only to make another one even stronger just might not be the greatest idea in the world?

Sometimes a bad situation should be left bad rather than made worse.

dodging the question...ok

I guess I just dont know like you do...

WE know??? What else do you know that has not yet happened?

Do you also know that the world would have been better if we had done no more than we were already doing?

I'm not dodging the question. I suspect that you have some special secret knowledge of future events.

I'm talking about self-assertion and humanist principles, and you jump in with "the Kurds and Shi'ites are bad." then you make an assumption that does not necessarily have to be true.

Were there children born today whose parents beleive for the first time that they are free from tyranny? Is there a child born today who will never live under that tyranny. Has a new story been added to history that describes release from tyranny.

The new chapter has not yet been written. You may be right, but you are not bnecessarily right. Nor am I a fool for knowing that there is more possible than the grim outcome that you prescribe for a whole nation of people.

I'm not speaking globally. I'm talking about Iraq. In Iraq, we KNEW FOR A FACT that the only people in any position to replace Hussein were even worse than he was. I'm taking the pragmatic approach.

How does replacing a dictator with one who's even worse help freedom?

I dont resist that idea at all..

which tyranny has grown stronger, if I may ask?

The theocracy brewing in Iraq.

Or do you (unlike anyone else in the world) somehow know of some secret candidate for power in Iraq that doesn't endorse subjecting the nation to Sharia?

I dont disagree with your pragmatism, that would be foolish of me.

It is clear that you beleive that we would knowingly engage Iraq in manner that conflicts with the interests of freedom for Iraqis.

You certainly have a plethora of examples from recent history to back up that claim.

My thought is that the prevailing idea is that terrorism and tyranny can only be fought with knowledge. Knowledge first requires the aquisition of free flowing information. Knowledge is then nutured through the analysis and sythesis of the information that flows freely to them.

Release people from tyranny and they become strong individuals capable of self-preservation and self-assertion.

I admit I have no such secret knowledge.

Except that the people who have a vested interest in things going the other way are the ones with the guns.

Pragmatically.... I have to say that going in and removing Hussein, (a dictator true, but one who'd had his teeth pulled) and leaving a power vaccum wasn't exactly smart.... especially when you consider that we knew ahead of time that that vaccum would be filled by either Iraq's Shi'ite majority... (not great... they're horribly repressive compared to the Ba'athists...) or the Kurds. (Remember the Taliban anyone? The Kurds are from the same sect of Islam... and are in fact just about the only allies the Taliban has left.)

Have we made anything better? No. Iraqi women and religious minorities are much worse off now than they were before. (Say what you will about Hussein.... but give him that much at least. Yes he was a dictator, but credit where credit's due.... he was considerably more enlightened on that score than most people in the region.) We're getting reports out now that Iraqi women are constantly in fear for their safety.... and if I were living in Iraq... I'd already have started running for the border.

There are times when doing something just to be doing something is a bad idea. Sometimes you're much better off leaving a bad situtaion alone and letting it whither and die on its own... (Which Hussein's regime was on its way to doing.)

Knowledge and quality of life is the best way to fight terrorism and oppression.... putting people in power who have a divine mandate to suppress 'bad' knowledge isn't the way to get that knowledge where it will do some good.

The thought is sobering.

I dont deny that those possibilities are real and threatening. It may be the near or distant future that writes the report telling us exactly what we have done.

It is the struggle that now faces milions of women in Iraq while the war continues.

Perhaps the war was wrecklessly pursued. I do not personally feel that way, but I know I have no special insight. I am driven to my conclusions by principle rather than details. This my be a great error on my part. My hope is that my foolishness does not condemn others to a life of fear and tragedy.

Thanks for the discussion Corwin. I look forward to our next encounter

I find it bizarre that everyone here is worried about the Shiites and Kurds, when in fact those parts of Iraq have been thoroughly peaceful. Iran tried sending some agents provocateur to push the region toward an Iran-style theocracy; but the Iraqi Shiites sent them packing. All the major Shiite clerics of Iraq have thrown their support behind the Coalition and the Governing Council.

The Kurds of Iraq have been mostly self-governing since the mid-1990s, thanks in part to the enforecement of the northern no-fly zone; they even have a Constitution. The leadership of both of the major Kurdish political parties (yes, they have those too) have steadfastly supported a united Iraq.

The US Marine First Expeditionary Force, in charge of administering Shiite southern Iraq from April through September, experienced *zero* combat casualties after the fall of Baghdad. The 101st Airborne had similar success administering Kurdish northern Iraq.

The resistance has been neither Shiite nor Kurd, but among Saddam's fellow Sunni Arabs, in the so-called "Sunni Triangle" that includes Baghdad and Tikrit. (And since many reporters in Iraq never bother leaving Baghdad, we hear about the problems there and get the impression that the entire country is like that.)

"Shiite" is not synonymous with "fanatic". Just as Christianity is divided into Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox, Islam is divided into Shia and Sunni -- and neither is notably more dangerous or fanatical than the other. (Osama and most of his inner circle, for instance, are Sunni.)

Does anyone have any actual *evidence* that Iraq is trending fundamentalist, or that either the Shia or the Kurd are turning against the Coalition? Or is this all simply speculation?

Theres no way of really knowing whats going on in Iraq, unless you are there.
They must be allowed any type of government they want, even if it is a Theocracy. Would we have allowed, after the Revolutionary War, the French or Spanish to tell us what kind of government to have? I don't think so.

poor saddam, heh, too bad they found him, now it looks as if bush will be reelcted

Well, here are some people who *are* there:

http://iraqataglance.blogspot.com/
http://www.healingiraq.com/
http://www.messopotamian.blogspot.com/
http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/
http://www.iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
http://www.hammorabi.blogspot.com/
http://www.nabilsblog.blogspot.com/

I'll have to take their word for it. I don't believe everything I see on the internet.

I don't know abou the rest, But the Dear Read Blog is real. It's been featured on MSNBC, FOX, CNN, etc...




Is there anyone out there who is truley evil? Who doesn't want peace? Who doesn't want to raise a family, own a house, or share in any of the other dreams all of humanity has? We've all been watching to many movies. There is no such thing as an evil person. (Well, maybe Hitler was, but I'm not going there in this thread)

I think we tend to forget that our enemy is also human. The media is so quick to demonize people because everyone loves a classic goodguy badguy fight. The truth is that there are never black and white conflicts. There is always a grey area on both sides. Let me explain,

American soldiers kill people. Killing people is evil. Does that make America evil? No, we kill people because we feel it makes us safer. But killing people doesn't exactly make us perfect.

Terrorist, like Osama Bin Laden, honestly thinks that America threatens them somehow. They feel justified in their deeds knowing that they are ridding the world of this "great evil". Does that make it right? No, but it's not like they are mindlessly killing people for no reason.

It's all relative when it boils down to it. Two sides, who honestly feel they are in the right, killing each other because of this belief. Each time one side is successful in harming the other side it only strengthens the hatred. As I said in a previous post it just leads to a vicious cycle.

Some may argue that the terrorist started the conflict. This is not really true. People just don't decided to suicide bomb a hotel because it sounds like a fun thing to do. Put yourself in their shoes. Wouldn't it take ALOT to push you over that edge? Remember, those terrorist flew into world trade center right along with their victims. Yes, there are a few wackos out their, but you can't honestly think they are all insane.

There is never a right reason for terrorism but there are plenty of seemingly good reasons.

What I'm trying to say is this is not a typical war. It's not about land, power, money, or any of that. Terrorist want nothing more than revenge. Who knows if that revenge is justified or not, it doesn't matter. The point is we are fighting a pure hatred and hatred spreads like a virus. You kill one terrorist and it only creates 3 more ready to die for the cause.

The only way to solve this is to prove them wrong. Show them we aren't the great evil they think we are. I don't pretend to know how to do that but I do know you don't do it with violence.

Ah, people have such short memories.

Bush lied to congress and the country. So did Clinton, although his lies were more for personal gain than for national reasons. So did every US president since George Washington. And every successful politician. Nothing screams "dogmatic thinking" than accusing the current (or past) administration of such things as if they were solely guilty of them.

This administration profits from the war. Every administration profits from actions taken in their reigns. And plenty of Democrats went on record as supporting the war. Any of those who now vilifies Bush as a warmongerer is simply trying to play both sides of the fence (see "everyone lies" above).

Thousands of people died in the war. Thousands of people would have died anyway. But in the Hussein regime, that was business as usual - not formal warfare. Or is it just that it is okay for arabic peoples to be killed without any chance to defend themselves, but not freshly scrubbed American faces?

We didn't catch Bin Laden. True, but now in Afganistan, women can be legally educated and employed. They are no longer chattel. Now, isn't that a good thing? Also, if we didn't react strongly to 9/11, that would only have shown the world that acts of terrorism against the US could be done without consequence.

FOX news is a propaganda mouthpiece for conservatives. Probably true, but no more than ABC, CBS, NBC are for liberals.

I for one think that the world in general is a better place without Saddam Hussein. Whether it remains so has yet to be decided. There seems to be a strong anti-religious bent to frequent posters in these forums, but even a theocracy would not necessarily be bad. America destabilizing the Middle East? By invading and taking over neighboring Kuwait? No, wait, that was Iraq.

As for America policing the world, etc. - America isn't perfect, but I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. There are always going to be countries that try to impose their will upon others. That is a fact - I wish it weren't. But, better it be the US in the Middle East than Iraq or Iran. Better it be us in northeast asia than North Korea.

If anyone is interested in my political viewpoint, it is that republicans want America to be stronger, even though it hurts individual americans. Democrats want Americans to be individually stronger, even if it hurts the greater whole of America.

Boy Eggy... you sure opened a can o'worms on this thread!!

I, for one, am happy to see he's caught. With that said, I must say...

There is no question that Saddam is a bad, bad man. I'm just not convinced that with all of the unresolved issues @ home, we should've been trying to 'fix' another countries problems.

I think that once all of our problems at home are fixed, we can concentrate on helping others... but until then, we should be investing @ home, not abroad.

If you think it's just Hitler, remember: he didn't kill all 20 million all by himself. He had *lots* of enthusiastic helpers. And he's not even the worst the 20th century had to offer:

Nazi Germany (20 million)
Communist China (35 million)
Soviet Union (60 million)

And that's just one century. See the full mass-murder scorecard here:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

Yes, there are real, genuine predators in the world; and any rational foreign policy must take such individuals -- and the regimes they control -- into account.

We don't want another Taliban. Wasn't one bad enough?

Shi'ite is not synonymous with 'fanatic...' unless you happen to be a non-muslim or woman. At that point... the Shi'ite position that Sharia should be temporal law applying to all people, even non-muslims becomes much more... intimidating.

Theocracies are bad. Period. Don't believe me? Try living under one that doesn't like YOUR religion.

You're describing Wahabbist Islam, which a Sunni doctrine. And the Taliban were Sunni, not Shi'ites.

Both Sunni and Shi'ite Islam have their fanatics and ther reformers, and the Sunni fanatics (like Osama and the Taliban) are no better than the Shi'ite fanatics (like the mullahs who control Iran).

And I am not defending theocracy in any way, shape, or form. I'll thank you not to imply that I am.

I ask again: do you have any *evidence* that Iraq is trending towards an Iran-style or Taliban-style theocracy, or are you just speculating?

Man, did this thread wander off course!

Anyway, I found an interesting editorial in today's Washington Post. Yeah, I know, "liberal rag" to some of you. I will not comment on what Mr Cohen wrote, but I can say its food for thought.

How about the fact that Iraqi women are afraid to work or go to school now? How about the Shi'ite agitation for islamic law?

I suppose I'm just speculating... I mean it could be just fine... never mind that EVERY theocratic state degenerates into oppression of dissenters.... but then history is irrelevant. Isn't it?