[J m HofMarN]

Slade- last count its about 2 million, you're right. The US, benevolent ruler that it is, has taken in 7000 of those refugees from a war we started. That's what I call compassioante conservativism.

[Cobnat]

Jordan-
They should have let him live and have that country. Ya he was brutal, but muslims need a ruthless dictator to keep them in check. Look at the country now. Why bother rebuild or establish a government when you can car bomb one another.


All people who hold their religion over their country need a ruthless dictator to keep them in check, don’t just single out the Muslims. I mean look at South America, most if not all terrorists there are Catholics (if you don’t count the Marxists) so if you think Muslims need a firm hand then you mustalso agree that Catholics need a firm hand too.


Jordan-
Saddam was not liked by his neighbours and kept a good off balance in the middle east.


When that United States invaded Iraq, Iraq was on the verge of a civil war, what is happening now in the streets of Baghdad is just a delayed time bomb which Saddam had placed during his reign.


Jordan-
WIth him gone, Iran has warmed up to Iraq and so have other countries.


HAHAHA! If by warmed up you mean sending in some holy warriors to cause havoc, then yes.


Jordan-
They shouldn't have killed him or even over thrown him.

In hindsight, the war on Iraq was a total waste of time.


Yes, for Americans at least.


civilian_number_two-
Oh come on Jordan. I eat dinner every week with Muslims who don't yearn for a ruthless dictator, and who think that Saudi Arabia's lifelong protection of Idi Amin, followed by a military funeral with all the trimmings, was ridiculous and embarrassing. What's going on in Iraq now is the natural response to the destruction of a government by military action. The same thing happened in Ireland, for God's sake, and they didn't have a single Muslim among them. IIRC, even the US had a Civil War not long after independence. It's just the way nations build themselves.


Humanity is beautiful in its entirety.


J m HofMarN-
And Jordan, Civ's right. Muslims live just fine in democratic countries. You can't just say that people are animals and need oppression to keep them in line. Look at what happened in the US after independence: Persecution of British loyalists, 2 or 3 more rebellions, war with Mexico, Britain, Canada, civil war, all in just 100 years. I suppose Americans are animals and need a ruthless dictator to keep them in line.


*cough* You said it, I didn’t.


J m HofMarN-
It's that kind of attitude, NOT the attitude of the Iraqi people that lost this war. You know why so many Iraqis join militias? Because militias pay money and offer protection. You know what the alternative to that is? Fifty percent unemployment.
And why is this, you ask? Because when the great white liberators stormed in to "save" the poor backwards Muslims from their native ruler, they dismantled the army, the state factory systems, and bombed the infrastructure.

State factories employed over 100000 people, keeping them off the streets and fairly content. Do you know why they weren't reopened? Because the grand and enlightened Bush decided that socialism was a dirty dirty thing, and so he tried to sell those factories to private businesses, which did not buy them as they're kind of in a war zone.

So look at this scenario. Men cant feed their kids, there's not one damned bit of security, foreigners roam the streets killing who they please, people fucking disappear daily into the American gulag, or simply to the militias execution squads... And you expect people not only to be peaceful, but to build a fucking government?

I'd be more worried about feeding my family and getting rid of the occupiers. I'd join a fucking militia, and so would any other sensible person. The US has created this scenario. It was a bad idea to get rid of Saddam. Iraq was a stable secular state and the people were fairly well treated as long as they didnt get out of line. Saddam could not have dreamed of killing as many people as have been killed by Western bombings and sanctions.


I am going to have to agree with J-man on this one; I will give an example; The US and Soviet occupation of Europe after WW2.

When the Allies defeated the Axis, the United States allowed all political, social, military and economic leaders from before the war to go back to their countries of origin, also anyone who had emigrated to the United States or Great Britain from countries in Central and Western Europe during the Nazi terror. Despite the massive debt the Western European nations had with the United States, they managed to pull through and all become dominate economic superpowers, excluding of course Spain, Ireland and Italy (although Ireland has had a massive GNP raise since the 90s).

Now look at what happened in Soviet occupied Europe (including Yugoslavia and Albania) where the Soviets and local Communists didn’t allow many, if any political, social, military and economic leaders who had power before the war to have power in the new Communist countries. They completely reformed the capitalist countries (excluding Germany, Romania and Bulgaria) and basically turned entire societies inside out so they would be more Communist/Soviet friendly.

The reasons why Communism collapsed in Europe is because Europeans are not used to it. Communism works great in mainland Asia and Indochina, simply because the societies there have been living in Communal societies and economies (except for Central China which has always been capitalist).

If a country invades another then it must respect the societies of those who are invaded.


J m HofMarN-
But to take out Saddam, have a kangaroo court, lynch him, fail to provide jobs, fail to provide real police or security, mismanage the country's infrastructure, outsource work to American firms, fail to provide electricity or clean water, and shut down jobs that Saddam had in place. That's unforgiveable. A competent man would not have invaded Iraq on doctored intelligence, but if for some reason he had, I think Iraq could have been a victory if handled right.


No occupation nowadays is “winnable“.


Jordan-
France, Poland, Britain, Japan, Almost all of eastern Europe, etc.. These countries re-built, namely because they didn't hate one another from within. Political parties can argue and prolong things, but religions factions just blow the shit out of stuff and kill people.


Europeans didn’t go to war with one another because of M(utually) A(ssured) D(estruction), not because they are somehow different from the rest of the world. Also having an American or Soviet base every 5 kilometres made regional conflicts almost impossible.


Jordan-
I read a report that said Saddam ruled with an iron fist out of necessity. He supported a minority (not saying they were good guys just because they were small) group within Iraq, and his survival was ensured by his crackdowns on opposition. It was a despotic rule for survival.


Actually he didn’t support any one minority, he supported many small minorities and one religious majority (the Sunnis) but this is just speculation, I am sure that no one was safe from his rule.


Jordan-
You eat dinner with western Muslims, whose survival and quality of life is dependent on not causing shit. Not all of them are violent, but i have a feeling the passive ones do support the violent ones. Not every one has what it takes to kill or start gunfights. But where is the worldwide muslim out cry against shit happening all around the planet. From eastern Europe to the middle east to Northern Africa.


To the horn of Africa, to South East Asia. Look, Muslims don’t “cry out” against Muslim war crimes because they themselves feel oppressed and they feel war crimes against them are going unpunished. It is in fact very reasonable and logical as to why they do not speak out.


Horror-
Any interesting read which raises the question: Can a man who ordered the deaths of over 1,500,000 Muslims become an Islamic martyr?


Horror, could you please get rid of that skull in your avatar, it is very unsettling.

This post has been edited by Cobnat: 21 June 2007 - 06:46 AM

[civilian_number_two]

You eat dinner with western Muslims, whose survival and quality of life is dependent on not causing shit. Not all of them are violent, but i have a feeling the passive ones do support the violent ones.

Actually, the people I know owe their survival and quality of life to their academic studies and adult work ethics. Yes, they are Western, but NO, they do not in any way, secretly or openly, support violent Muslims. They are Canadians born and raised in other parts of the world, namely Saudi Arabia and India. Neither would know how to disengage the safety on a handgun, and while neither supports Bush's War of Terror, it's not for the reasons you suggest. You might as well say that because I am Irish I supported IRA terrorism (I didn't).

Anyway, the whole point of my post was to mention that Muslims by nature don't need oppressive dictatorships; you'd made a rather extreme claim there that needed comment. Muslims in NOrth America can live full and productive lives without a day of torture or even the smallest temptation to bomb a car with themselves in it.

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 26 June 2007 - 01:51 AM

[J m HofMarN]

Muslims in NOrth America can live full and productive lives without a day of torture

Not if we have anything to say about it they can't!