Can anyone answer this question?

by Jim Monaghan Mon Mar 24, 2003 10:10

This assumes that the purpose of the USA is to put in something better.I am sure the Kurds and everyone else in Iraq would like to see Sadaam hanging form a lamppost but the Kurds are being duped. The Turks will not allow an independent Kurdistan and neither will the Iranians.
Look at the parallel in Venezuela. Chavez is popular and elected. But because he wants to help the poor and give some of the oil revenues to the poor he is the subject of American plots to replace him.
Sadaam had implicit support from the West for the Iran war. Elements of Fianna Fail had cosy contracts with the mass murderer. Are the Afghanis better off? The international drug trdae is. The poppy growing area has grown massively.
Interesting that.
Jim Monaghan

by Albo Mon Mar 24, 2003 10:36

You're missing the point, Mellian.

War should be avoided because there were peaceful options still available and unexplored. At no time did the leaders - Bush, Blair, Chirac, etc. - discuss what could be done about Saddam.

For example. A few months ago, Iraq held a referendum to either keep or get rid of Saddam. Granted the result was a joke, but the U.N. should have taken this oppurtunity to push for Saddam to allow election-inspectors in. This includes ensuring correct counting, no intimidation, secret ballots, one-person/one-vote, education of the people about both sides, and so forth.

Granted, Saddam probably would have refused, but maybe he wouldn't, and now we'll never know. The U.N. should have made a resolution out of it, since Saddam seems so intent on being seen to be obeying them.

Even if he did refuse, it would have been a severe blow in the propoganda war he is fighting, and the U.N. could say they tried it. I'm sure there are a few other possible solutions, use your imagination.

The point is, war should be a last resort, not just a means to an end. But Bush has been pushing for war since the beginning.

by Niall O Brolchain Mon Mar 24, 2003 10:37

It's probably too late now but it would have been the least worst option.

Now for my question

"How exactly will dropping billions of dollars worth of explosives on Baghdad promote peace and justice in Iraq?"

by mr. regime change Mon Mar 24, 2003 10:46

The point is that in every country in the world there are "discontents" with the existing regime for whatever reasons, well-founded or not.

Saddam may well be a thug but if he was sufficiently loyal and pliabe the US wouldn't be interested in replacing him .....

I have no problem with the concept of replacing Saddam but the question is what will he be replaced with ?

That is really the crux of the matter.

Look at the US track record in:
(i) Some older cases
Chile after it was "liberated" from Allende - does the name Pinochet ring any bells or maybe you are too young ?

(ii) Indonesia after it was "liberated" from the "communist" Sukharno and came under the iron fist of Sukharto (names are confusingly similar I know ...). Again you may be too young - study the history if you don't know it.

(iii) Kuwait after it was "liberated" in the last Gulf War - (return to the feudal status quo complete with an Emir and his goldeb toilet seats in case you don't know)

(iv) the Balkans (or more precisely Serbia) after it was "liberated" from Milosevic - and don't forget that nobody in the US was ever too worried about Milosevics Croatian counterpart Tudjman ......

(v) Afghanistan after it was "liberated" from the Taliban .....

I could go on but it might become a bit repetitive ....

"Regime change" sounds nice on paper but when you look at the practice ..... well personally I am not very convinced ....
Or maybe I just I have a wee problem with US propaganda stooges parroting the mantras of their masters ......

The Iraqi who spoke may be genuine, he may believe what he says, there may even be a grain of truth in it .....

But nothing he says will convince me that the ruling cabal of plutocrats in Washington who have usurped the American Republic give a fig for the Iraqi people ......
If they can find some bloodthirsty thug who is sufficiently corrupt to do their will, he'll be installed and kept in power ..... at least until he shows the slightest sign of disobedience .....

by iosaf (oracle duty jedi) Mon Mar 24, 2003 11:58

ask little miss sevilla.
she is now little miss Spain.
she is tall.
she is pretty.
she can walk on gihg heels.
she can sing.
she can swim.
she can put on a bra.
she wears jeans.
she is woreking for peace and reconciliation.
she cries with joy.
she can't balkance a crown on her head, but that's the hairspray.
http://barcelona.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=35630&group=webcast

by iosaf Mon Mar 24, 2003 12:00

o little miss Sevilla.
I just hope that cynical types won't make her term a pointless sponsership deal for Wella hairproducts and ignore what she has to say on behalf of all pretty nineteen year olds who really just do this thing for a laugh and know of course that they are very different from the stereotypes of the 20th century.

by .simon Mon Mar 24, 2003 15:01

If the us can afford to spend billions on bombs and sending 250,000 troops into Iraq could they not have sent in 100,000 UN weapons inspectors/disarmers?

Allow the Iraqi people decide their own fate. Somebody on this board mentioned complicity in a nation allowing themselves be ruled by a dictator, this poses many difficult questions. It seems like any political quandry - some want Saddam some dont - we need to find where the majority lies not what is good for the US/UK.

by Anonymous Mon Mar 24, 2003 15:29

I have made postings eluding to the same question you pose, twice already on this newswire:-

http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=36838&start=100 (just last Saturday)

and

http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=26082&start=1470

You will find some attempted answers to your question on these postings, including some good links to interviews with Iraqi's.

However, I do not think anyone has offered a decent, comprehesive and factual answer to this question yet.

As much as I abhor the policies of the US administration, it is just possible, that inadvertently they will, overall, be doing the people of Iraq a favour by getting rid of that despot that is Saddam Hussein.

I cannot stand the thought of Bush et. al. being vidicated at the end of this war. But in the end the hopeful outcome is not the appeasement of mine or anyone else's thoughts and wishes but rather what is best for the poor, blighted people of Iraq.

My search to find out what they really want continues.

by Stephen Clarke Mon Mar 24, 2003 16:00 s.clarke at longusername dot worldonline dot co dot uk

"How exactly will leaving Saddam in power promote peace and justice in Iraq?"

This is a trick question and you are not obliged to answer. Its leading assumption is that your job is to promote peace and justice in another country. Whether true or not, it already answers the question at issue, namely, should we intervene in the affairs of another country for the good? This particular device is called a "leading question" and is normally listed among the common logical fallacies.

by .simon Mon Mar 24, 2003 16:29

If the us can afford to spend billions on bombs and sending 250,000 troops into Iraq could they not have sent in 100,000 UN weapons inspectors/disarmers?

Allow the Iraqi people decide their own fate. Somebody on this board mentioned complicity in a nation allowing themselves be ruled by a dictator, this poses many difficult questions. It seems like any political quandry - some want Saddam some dont - we need to find where the majority lies not what is good for the US/UK.

by iosaf/ipsiphi/o as if (who isn't joseph/josef)[just in case] Mon Mar 24, 2003 18:20

beat the other competitors by a landslide.
of course the person who posted this question doesn't know that. Because they didn't see Spanish Tele5 last night.
They didn't even see RTE last night.
They just broke the IMC code by posting globally.
Perhaps they have a good phone deal?
Anyway you all would better use this space if you commented on genuine contributions.

Mellian Mon, Mar 24 2003, 4:48am
[email protected]
is a troll.
4h48 ireland. a little later the rest of Europe.
regardless on language.
=as relevant as little miss Sevilla.

I have been trying to establish exactly little miss Spain will be doing to stop the war all afternoon but her agent's office say that her contribution will be subject to approval by the sponsership.
thus WELLA haircare will direct Little Miss Sevilla's pacifism. I have every hope that WELLA will direct her well, she seems to be a bit of innocent little girl, almost " a lovely girl" and I'd hate the idea of her being manipulated.

I am still trying to find a nice photo of this lovely modern girl who isn't a stereotype honestly to share with ye all.