Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cage)
    Let's not exaggerate now, Jonathon. Saddam Hussein was not a pleasant bloke and he murdered about 5000 Kurds. Several thousand more people (mostly executed legally - ignoring the fact that execution is always a breach of human rights laws) That's not "hundreds of thousands".

    The "hundreds of thousands" you are referring to actually died in the Iran-Iraq war - casualties comparable to a number of wars the US has been involved in, and casualties which include both sides. The majority of these were military personnel, and whilst there were undoubtedly indiscriminate civilian bombings, suchlike bombings take place in many wars. The 2006 Israel-Lebanon war for a start.
    This is what I love. Any negative effect of wars not involving the US/UK can be dampened by mentioning the same negatives in wars in which they or their allies have been involved in. However, no negative effect of wars in which we have been involved or started are dampened with comparable comparisons. So, we have those casualties caused by the Iran-Iraq war being relativised with 'suchlike bombings take place in many wars' and 'casualties comparable to a number of wars the US have been involved in'. However, those deaths having taken and taking place in Iraq presently are simply disgusting and wrong, never compared to other wars and taken as a single entity. Perhaps a certain amount of intellectual dishonesty Cage?

    Interesting :p:. Tell me Cage, what it is about the left on this issue, constantly relativising the issue for one side so as to 'understand', whilst not doing the same in regards to the other? For example, the constant focus on US foreign policy, whilst ignoring the 'foreign policy' of many Islamic extremists as a contributor to the current conflict. Condemning deaths in Iraq attributed to US soldiers, but failing to do the same for deaths caused by sectarian or insurgent violence, rather attempting to reach an understanding most do not grant the US/UK. Attacking Israel for its actions, whilst viewing the actions of Hamas/Hezbollah in a far more relative and understanding light. Perhaps my perception is coloured, but quite often I feel that this brand of understanding is granted rather haphazardly :p:.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cage)
    Because it is relevant. It is only your strange belief that murdering civilians is fine as long as it is done before the clock stops ticking that caused me to point out that even without the added factor of timing, it is still unjustifiable to attack civilians.


    There WAS a high death toll, but there were a great deal more casualties afterwards. This isn't just some arbitrary judgement I'm making - Israel was strongly condemned by the UN for attacking civilians with cluster bombs, as was the United States during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The point of all of this is that civilian casualties in the Iran-Iraq war (with US backing!) were no more genocide than those inflicted by Israel and the US in Lebanon and Iraq respectively.

    This is all rather unimportant, though, since removing Saddam Hussein was never the objective of the invasion - indeed there are several other countries in which interventionist action would be far more justified.
    Hezbollah intentionally hide amongst the civilian population. I assume you think the IDF should simply sit back whilst they fire rockets at Israeli civilians, so as to not harm the Lebanese civilians Hezbollah use as effective human shields?

    It really isn't as easy or simple as you portray.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kondar)
    All were committed within the confines of the Iran Iraq war. Furthermore you are being illogical by mentioning deaths and torture since those occur in all wars... :rolleyes: We are talking about national laws and minority rights. Women were allowed to be educated... do you understand this? Women were allowed to vote and run for political office.... do you understand that? This was in sharp contrast to the rest of the middle east. Futhermore Iraq was secular... as in it was not run by Islamic Law, this is also in sharp contrast to the rest of the Middle East. Iraq offered freedom of religion.. again in sharp contrast to the rest of the ME.

    SECULAR
    WOMENS RIGHTS
    FREEDOM OF RELIGION

    You cannot name another Islamic nation in the ME that offered all three of these. That is what is meant by the term progressive. Whatever crimes Saddam may have committed does not detract from the laws that he established under the Ba'ath party.

    This is the last time I will respond your posts. No offense.
    I imagine the civilian deaths and tortures that have and no doubt do still occur in Iraq when mentioned are illogical also? No wait, you've been complaining about just that for quite a while now. How interesting that those deaths caused by Saddam and his warmongering are inconsequential, but that those caused by Bush and his warmongering are of consequence and must be heartily condemned.

    Pure dishonesty.

    Hey, the UK grants women all those rights too! Time to start executing political opponents, it'll be ok because women have rights. What happens in Guantanamo is fine, women have rights in the US, it all balances out. Wait... Do you read your own posts before you make them Kondar?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, they are terrorists. They had only one objective: to scare and disrupt general life by violence to bring about political/religious policies by force. Thats terrorism.

    The issue on calling it the 'war on terror' however is different. Calling it a war does give the terrorists a slight advantage as they inherit the role of 'Combatant' which almost gives them the right to attack. However, people are calling for an end to the term 'war on terror' and just concentrate on the fact that terrorism is a crime. If commited or conspired for, you will be prosecuted.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hafzal)
    Yes, they are terrorists. They had only one objective: to scare and disrupt general life by violence to bring about political/religious policies by force. Thats terrorism.

    The issue on calling it the 'war on terror' however is different. Calling it a war does give the terrorists a slight advantage as they inherit the role of 'Combatant' which almost gives them the right to attack. However, people are calling for an end to the term 'war on terror' and just concentrate on the fact that terrorism is a crime. If commited or conspired for, you will be prosecuted.
    And what happens if people are conspiring to commit a crime in a third country that doesn't cooperate with British intelligence?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehjonny)
    I imagine the civilian deaths and tortures that have and no doubt do still occur in Iraq when mentioned are illogical also? No wait, you've been complaining about just that for quite a while now. How interesting that those deaths caused by Saddam and his warmongering are inconsequential, but that those caused by Bush and his warmongering are of consequence and must be heartily condemned.
    The use of the term illogical was a facetious retort to a previous user and would only be understood in the context of that discussion (hence the rolls eye smiley).
    Hey, the UK grants women all those rights too! Time to start executing political opponents, it'll be ok because women have rights. What happens in Guantanamo is fine, women have rights in the US, it all balances out. Wait... Do you read your own posts before you make them Kondar?
    Seriously... There is nothing worse than trying to discuss real issues with young people who are so infernally convinced that they are absolutely right about everything. Next time, try to pay attention to the context of the discussion.

    The fact that Saddam Hussein committed human rights violations during the Iran-Iraq war does not have any bearing on the established governmental policies in Iraq and how they compared to neighboring Muslim nations in the Middle East. It does not change the fact that Iraq was Secular, it does not change the fact that Iraq was a leader in women's rights in the Middle East, it does not change the fact that Iraq offered freedom of religion to its citizens. Furthermore, it does not change the fact that all these attributes alienated the Ba'ath party in Iraq from the rest of it's Midde Eastern counterparts.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kondar)
    The use of the term illogical was a facetious retort to a previous user and would only be understood in the context of that discussion (hence the rolls eye smiley).
    Seriously... There is nothing worse than trying to discuss real issues with young people who are so infernally convinced that they are absolutely right about everything. Next time, try to pay attention to the context of the discussion.

    The fact that Saddam Hussein committed human rights violations during the Iran-Iraq war does not have any bearing on the established governmental policies in Iraq and how they compared to neighboring Muslim nations in the Middle East. It does not change the fact that Iraq was Secular, it does not change the fact that Iraq was a leader in women's rights in the Middle East, it does not change the fact that Iraq offered freedom of religion to its citizens. Furthermore, it does not change the fact that all these attributes alienated the Ba'ath party in Iraq from the rest of it's Midde Eastern counterparts.
    Sigh. Pure dishonesty once again. Are you not railing against the deaths in Iraq, whilst waving away those caused in another war? Justified with 'those happen in all wars', yet you do not use this justification, just as applicable, in regards to the current conflict? As I have pointed out, you are rather selective in your understanding, your empathy, and your relativising of issues.

    We offer women rights, we are pretty progressive. That doesn't mean the UK can start a genocidal policy towards the Welsh and turn around and say 'but we're progressive in other matters'. It matters not, once you go down that road your other ideals mean exactly **** all.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kondar)
    The fact that Saddam Hussein committed human rights violations during the Iran-Iraq war does not have any bearing on the established governmental policies in Iraq and how they compared to neighboring Muslim nations in the Middle East. It does not change the fact that Iraq was Secular, it does not change the fact that Iraq was a leader in women's rights in the Middle East, it does not change the fact that Iraq offered freedom of religion to its citizens. Furthermore, it does not change the fact that all these attributes alienated the Ba'ath party in Iraq from the rest of it's Midde Eastern counterparts.
    'Human rights violations'...Saddam was genocidal, he was responsible for the deaths of some 2 million Iraqis, starting a war with Iran which cost them (Iranians) some half million lives, crippled the economy of Iraq and had one of the most oppressive regimes in history.

    This talk of 'secularism' and 'women's rights' is a joke, because Iraq was under the absolute rule of a tyrant. Women were taken off the streets and raped for mere suspicion of having some loose association with someone who may not be acting pro-ba'athi enough (and often these suspicions were false - there was no suspicion, it was just a means to scare the population).
    Women's rights extended only as far as they had no bearing on what concerned the ba'athists.

    And what exactly is the difference between a secular and religious tyrant? What on Earth is so good about secularism when it amounts to a single man making himself the god of a whole country?

    Religious freedom? Absolute nonsense. I won't even diginify that with a proper answer.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    All I have ever said was that Iraq was one of the most progressive nations in the Middle East. I have yet to see anyone actually try to counter this by mentioning a nation that was more progressive.

    I don't want to revolutionize the D&D forums but... thats kind of how things work. I say A is the best and you say.. no B is the best and then try to explain why.

    I have stated the reasons why Iraq was progressive COMPARED to its neighbors. Progressiveness is a relative state and exists only in contrast to other nations. Yes, we all know that Saddam killed lots of people, you can list that 100 times and you are still not helping your case.

    I await someone, anyone who can respond to this without resorting to hysterics.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehjonny)
    Sigh. Pure dishonesty once again.
    Oh and please explain to me how I am being dishonest...
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by freshprince)
    Why don't you pro war, zionist fanatics answer these simple questions with a yes or no.

    1) Is Iraq a safer place now or when Saddam was ruler?

    2) Is the world a safer place now or was it safer before the illegal invasion and occupation?

    3) Has that so called zionist "state" benefited from the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq, either directly or indirectly?

    Anyone with half a brain knows the correct answers to these q's are No, No, Yes. But these zionist fanatics, who can't see anything without looking through their star of david tinted specs, are a different case all together. According to them, America and that zionist so called "state" can do no wrong. They will never change their views, no matter how many civillians die at the hands of the U.S and that zionist so called "state". Oh and FYI, the civillians killed by insurgents, their real killers are America. Had America not illegally invaded and occupied Iraq, their would be no insurgency and chaos, hence no deaths. Don't give me this bs about how living under Saddam was hell, because even if it was (which it wasn't) its not half as bad as living in Iraq now. Yes Saddam did bad things, but who gave him the waepons to do these things in the first place? And most of the attrocities he commited were serveral years before the illegal invasion and occupation began.

    The bottom line is America has destroyed its reputation all because of oil, and because of its trying to protect its biatch, that so called zionist "state". No one takes anything this American government says seriously anymore. Everyone knows the bush administration is run by a bunch of zionist, neo con fanatics who are hell bent on killing as many people it takes to protect that so called state in the ME.
    was wondering how long it would take for a filisteeni to show up here and defend saddam. May God curse you and all of Palestine.

    What revolting creatures the Arabs are.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dirac Delta Function)
    was wondering how long it would take for a filisteeni to show up here and defend saddam. May God curse you and all of Palestine.

    What revolting creatures the Arabs are.
    No responding to his questions, just straight to the insults huh?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kondar)
    All I have ever said was that Iraq was one of the most progressive nations in the Middle East. I have yet to see anyone actually try to counter this by mentioning a nation that was more progressive.

    I don't want to revolutionize the D&D forums but... thats kind of how things work. I say A is the best and you say.. no B is the best and then try to explain why.

    I have stated the reasons why Iraq was progressive COMPARED to its neighbors. Progressiveness is a relative state and exists only in contrast to other nations. Yes, we all know that Saddam killed lots of people, you can list that 100 times and you are still not helping your case.

    I await someone, anyone who can respond to this without resorting to hysterics.
    How can the most tyrannical be the most progressive? Surely a progressive country should have at least some semblence of value on the lives of it's own people?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dirac Delta Function)
    How can the most tyrannical be the most progressive? Surely a progressive country should have at least some semblence of value on the lives of it's own people?
    If he was such a tyrant than your task of finding a more progressive government should be rather simple...
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kondar)
    No responding to his questions, just straight to the insults huh?
    Yep, absolutely. And If he were infront of me I would make my point far more 'memorable'.

    Do you think I have the inclination to debate with the likes of him? Why don't you ask a Jew to debate the merits and shortcomings of the Nazi party?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kondar)
    If he was such a tyrant than your task of finding a more progressive government should be rather simple...
    We have a more progressive government, the problem is that half the Sunni MPs are politicians by day, terrorists by night; the PM is rendered weak constitutionally; the Americans and Iranians are at war with each other on Iraqi turf, the Shia factions are disunited; the foreign Arab sewer rats have set up an 'Islamic state' in the middle of the country; corruption is leaking $billions out of the government funds and used to finance terrorism; the nation's infrastructure is being destroyed as it is being built + a vast plethora of other problems.

    From inside the country, Iraqis are growing much more resentful of the US. The Americans have fine-grain movement of the security forces, the government doesn't even have this power, like any sovereign government should. The Iraqis accuse the US of playing dirty games to the detriment of Iraq in order to topple the Maliki government and reinstate someone who will be a pliable ally on the war on terror (read: war on Iran).
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not going to profess to be knowledgable on the history of the Middle East for the last 100 years, but surely other neighbouring countries such as Lebanon and Jordan would give Iraq a run for its money. Perhaps even Egypt but that might be stretching it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not sure whether the point about Iraq being "the most advanced" is necessarily accurate, but they were certainly not exactly a third world country - currently, there are aspects of life in Iraq which are worse than a third world country. But assuming the US withdraw completely next year, I would imagine the inevitable civil war will last until about 2012, and it will be a powerful nation again by 2020.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Soc)
    I'm not going to profess to be knowledgable on the history of the Middle East for the last 100 years, but surely other neighbouring countries such as Lebanon and Jordan would give Iraq a run for its money. Perhaps even Egypt but that might be stretching it.
    There are always UAE, Qatar, and Brunei.

    (Original post by Dionysus)
    I'm not sure whether the point about Iraq being "the most advanced" is necessarily accurate, but they were certainly not exactly a third world country - currently, there are aspects of life in Iraq which are worse than a third world country. But assuming the US withdraw completely next year, I would imagine the inevitable civil war will last until about 2012, and it will be a powerful nation again by 2020.
    And your prediction is based on what?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    There are always UAE, Qatar, and Brunei.
    Qatar- "Although there were problems in some areas, the Government's overall human rights records improved in some areas during the year. The country has taken significant steps toward democratic governance; however, citizens did not have the right to peacefully change their government. The Government severely limited the rights of assembly and association. The Government restricted freedom of religion, although it continued to take some steps to ease restrictions on the practice of non-Muslim religions. The law and social customs restricted women's rights. The Government severely restricted workers' rights. At times, some domestic servants were mistreated and abused. Noncitizens, who make up more than 75 percent of local residents, faced discrimination in the workplace. The country also was a destination for trafficked persons."
    http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27936.htm

    The other two I will not contest, although Brunei only has a population 350,000 people (compared to Iraq's population of 28 million).
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.