strike on iraq

Originally posted by traderfut2000
5/ Saddam is a reason the US are using to defend their own interests in the region... Pakistan which was a democracy a few years ago is today run by Musharaf a dictator and this guy is backed by the US... It sounds curious to me that on one hand they want to eliminate a dictator and on the other hand they are backing a new dictatorship in Pakistan... a dictator that by the way supported the taliban which was not the case of Saddam..

Conclusion: Unfortunately, oil seems the main aim in that story not human rights nor the defense of the Iraki people...
More...

The US doesn't have much of an alternative in Pakistan. It is either a friendly dictator who is now taking some steps to fight the Taliban and terrorism in Pakistan instead of promote it, or a fundamentalist government similar to the Taliban in Afghanistan. Which would you choose?
 
A democracy... and there was a democracy before Musharaf and that general made a putsh... If the Us wants a democracy in Irak then how can they possibly deal with Musharaf.. they have to be consistent in their approach
 
ok hope that gives you some perspective. How old were you in 91-92? a teenager?
More...

Those were great years. I was about 15 years old at the time. I can remember being old enough to understand we were at war, but not old enough to comprehend all the variables of why we were at war. I do remember the pink ribbons, though.
 
Originally posted by traderfut2000
Have you heard about how the former tchetchen president was eliminated... he talked on his mobile phone, the russians intercepted his phone call and its location by satellite and they killed him....

Now the US is much more sophisticated than Russia and I am sure that if they wanted to kill him they could have done it long long time ago... This is what I think..
More...

Bad analogy. That was the media's story before 9/11. As we find out the so called Chechan "freedom fighters" were mostly trained in Al Quaeda camps and were fomenting terrorism in Russia. Ever since 9/11 relations with Russia and China have been much better. Why? Because both nations have been actively dealing with terrorists within their boarders for a long time and only now Washington starts to look more favorably on those countries defending themselves against terrorism.
 
Originally posted by traderfut2000

Concerning women they do vote in Irak,
More...

Yes and they all vote straght Baath party or they get shot when they leave the polls. Man I can't believe you would even post this!
 
Originally posted by traderfut2000
A democracy... and there was a democracy before Musharaf and that general made a putsh... If the Us wants a democracy in Irak then how can they possibly deal with Musharaf.. they have to be consistent in their approach
More...

Maybe you should reread my post. We deal with Musharaf because he is the only viable option. The US would prefer to deal with democracies but we don't routinely involve ourselves in correcting internal struggles. Musharef since 9/11 has made strides to cut off dealings with the Taliban and has generally made good faith efforts to stamp out terrorists in Pakistan. If he falls we will deal with an Anti-American government that would be the Taliban part II. This would be worse than dealing with Musharef.

We deal with the Saudis - a dictatorsihp, Jordan, Kuwait etc. We deal with most of the South American countries - many dictatorships. I don't see how we are being inconsistent. The key thread is that they are governments favorable to relationships with the US. We don't deal with Iraq, Iran, Syria, Cuba, North Korea and a few others.
 
Originally posted by traderfut2000
Irak contrary to what you were assuming was not a savage country.. Of course Saddam is a dictator but he was a laic and his prime minister is a christian...
Of course I do not want to live in Irak today but contrary to what you may think people are living normally in arab states it is not middle age...

Yes, well Iraq is not now what it was. And I never implied that Saddam was a theocratic despot. Iraq is not Saudi Arabia. It isn't Babylonia either anymore. But what it has become is evidently the direction that part of the world is headed towards. The rich get richer, the poor get deader. And the powerful become more and more ruthless so that their power is beyond challenge. And the best and easiest and cheapest way to retain that power is to deprive human rights, liberties, and education. So yes, there are plenty of intelligent and educated arabs like yourself. But they are not to be found outside the centers of power within those nations, or for a great degree within those nations at all. The level headed ones leave. Like you.


Concerning women they do vote in Irak, Syria egypt...
I am not 100% certain about this. I believe that in Egypt they may. But in Syria and in Iraq, I don't believe that Muslim women can vote. There are many christians in both those nations. I believe that the christian woman may be permitted to vote, but not the muslim women.

Now talking about Israel ... I can't understand you are defending so weel that rogue state...
In your opinion it is a rogue state. It is a state created by a mandate of the United Nations. And as you know it was attacked on all fronts on it's first day of independence, and has been fighting a battle of self defense for it's very survival since then on an every day basis.

... But a guy like Sharon for me is simply not the man of the situation... this guy is a fool and he is not working for the good of its own people...
Sharon is a thug. No doubt. But don't you see that the only reason he was elected was that the Israeli citizens became convinced that only a thug would be respected by the forces that opposed the existence of Israel? He was not a popular choice. He was elected because the population became convinced that the only thing that the Palestinians respected was brutality. It is indeed a sad situation. And it has to come to a stop. But Arafat is no better. Perhaps worse. At least he has a longer track record of brutality and duplicity. Sharon won't last in Israel. But Arafat, who I know you seem to admire, just goes on and on and rejects peace at every turn. And remember something else about Israeli leaders in general. They come from violent backgrounds because their lives have been violent, but not by choice. By self defense. Unlike Hamas and their like, who look to violence. So we are in disagreement about this issue obviously.


He is behaving like a real terrorist and not like a stateman and without a real peace agreement Israelis will still be terrorized and palestinian will continue to be humiliated...
More...
Yep, this is a tough call. Tell me the solution? Offer the Palestinians an independent state? Oh wait, they turned that down, didn't they. What is it they really want? Anything other than the destruction of Israel? Clearly they want only the 1% of what they have not been offered. I guess 99% just wasn't a good enough starting offer. And yes, my wife is a jew and is quite involved in the support and the politics of Israel. And she too is no fan of Sharons. She wishes there could be a real moderate in power. Even Netenyahu was too militant for her. But he will probably make a reappearance, because Israel is afraid to put anyone that the Palestinians may consider "soft" into power. They know that Afafat and Hamas and Islamic Jihad regard moderation as weakness. And if they are as violent and reckless with a guy like Sharon, how bold would they be with a "soft" leader? Too risky now. Sad but true. That is the mentality, and there is no debate about that. And the Jihad is really just an excuse as you well know. It isn't about religion. It isn't about a homeland. It is about seizing what the Israelis created while the palestinians were busy spending that same 50 years devoting their effort to hatred instead of farming and education and building and innovation. Now I know you will say I am being unfair about this. But we both know it is fact. The palestinians fled, went to the neighboring arab countries, where they were unwelcome, and became a lost people. Then when Israel was converted by hard work from a wasteland to an irrigated and well maintained oasis....well then it was time to clamor for the "right of return"....Why couldn't they do the same thing in Jordan that was done in Israel? Because it's easier to let someone else do the work, and then attempt to take it away then to actually do the work. And Jerusalem.....never was a Muslim holy place desecrated by the jews. But look what the Islamic fanatics did not only to the Jewish and Christian holy places, they even had an armed siege in the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem just this year. So tell me how wonderful the arab people are, and I will agree with you. But don't tell me how wonderful the "palestinians" are. What is a "palestinian" anyway? Oh, I almost forgot...they are the people that danced in the streets when New York was attacked.

Peace,
rs7
 
Originally posted by Madison
For clarification, I'm FAR from pro-Saddam - If the proper evidence is presented, then I'd support Saddam's removal completely - and I assume most of the world would, as they did in Gulf I. But until we get more than clumsy Bush speeches and grim predictions from parties with vested interests, I will remain skeptical...
More...

Talking about brainwashed.
If the proper evidence is presented.... You are repeating like a robot what you hear constantly everywhere. There is no f#%^&#@ evidence? Second, are you, as a Regular Joe, able to recognize the evidence? I guess an article in "NY Times" is good enough evidence to you.

If the proper evidence is presented... AMEN
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top