12/16 from the nytimes:
"In a swirl of reports that some police officers joined the
protest, Captain Challoub made it clear where his sympathies
lay. "Why did they show Mr. President Saddam Hussein on
television and humiliate him?" he asked. "He is our president.
There must be some kind of immunity.""
Even people risking their lives working for us didn't like
their former president humiliated.
\_ Clearly Captain Challoub is living in the past and needs a new
job. He wasn't their president. He was a brutal dictator, not
an elected president. The only thing more stupid than this quote
or your posting it is that I bothered to feed a troll. Do us all
a favor and delete your own post.
\_ It's not necessary to tell us how stupid you are. It is
quite obvious that, elected or not, many Sunnis still liked
Saddam, so why fan the flames? "Bring it on!"
\_ Of course the Sunnis liked being a minority group that got
to oppress the rest of the country. I'm sure the South
African whites felt the same way. Did you have a point?
\_ Oops, the Sunnis like Saddam. We can't use the
"Liberate Iraqis from Saddam" as the reason for our
invasion anymore. Let's change the reason to "liberate
the Shiites from the Sunnis" then. Oh, wait, the
Shiites may not like us there very much either. Maybe
we should change the reason to "help the oppressed Kurds
gain independence". Or maybe we should dig up some
WMD, or maybe find Osama's mother in Iraq.
\_ Wow, nice way to go off topic and duck my question. I'll
take that as a win. To answer your dodge, we invaded
because Saddam was a bastard and Bush Sr. screwed the
people over the first time and setting right his mistake
was the moral thing to do. You understand what it means
to "do the right thing"?
\_ By itself Bush Sr. not going into Iraq is a valid
option. Instigating a Shiite rebellion and then
not going in to help is wrong. There are many
ways to effect change in Iraq. 10 years of
dibilitating sanctions followed by an invasion
and then a clumsily handled occupation is not the
"right thing" to do. ---- (*)
\_ and many Germans loved Hitler. Your point?
\_ Last I checked, Iraq wasn't occupying any foreign
country in the last 10 years. Your analogy is
bogus. In one case we are liberating the Iraqis
(only reason we have left), in the other we were
liberating others FROM the Germans. Because of
that, the opinion of the Iraqis is critical to
the whole endeavor.
\_ By your 'logic' we should have stopped at the German
borders and left Hitler in power.
\_ I don't know where you learned your faulty logic.
When your reason for the invasion is to liberate
the Iraqis, you better be concerned about what
their opinion is. If you say you are doing some-
thing to help someone, you should ask them
whether they wanted it, and whether your action
is actually helping them, or just for you own
selfish interest.
\_ Saddam invaded Kuwait. Part of liberating Kuwait
should have been removing him. Now it has been
done. The analogy to freeing Europe but stopping
at the German border is a good one.
\_ Your analogy is bogus (see (*) above). Give
it up.
\_ I think it was the right thing to do and
the only reason it took 10 years is because
Clinton preferred to take no action.
\_ And I don't think it was the right thing
to do. Thanks for playing.
\_ Way to reduce your point to a matter
of opinion.
\_ The point has been made already.
You only offered an opinion, but
expect something more in return?
\_ The minority ethnic group in Iraq was in favor of
continued slaughter and oppression of the majority
of the population. I'm sure you're aware of that,
little troll. I'll bet you were in favor of
a political change in SA where the situation was
exactly the same. The only difference is that in
SA the minority oppressors were white people and
we know white people are automatically wrong and
evil at all times, right?
\_ Ah, playing the race card again.
First, except for the Kurds, Iraqis are
ethnically the same. The Sunnis / Shiite
distinction is religious, not ethnic. The
Kurds are ethnically different but they
are Sunnis too. Thus your "minority
ethnic group [slaughtering and oppressing]
others" is bogus. There are many Shiites
and also Christians in positions of power
under the Saddam regime. While religious
and tribal affliations do play a role,
it is not in the black and white terms you
portray, and your attempt to castigate
all Sunnis as oppressors is wrong headed
and naive. If you disregard their opinion
and interest, democracy in Iraq is bound to
fail.
\_ You need to realize GW Bush cares more about PR at home than PR
in Iraq. So what if Iraqis don't like us. That just means we
need to kill a few more insurgents. Piece of cake. But hey,
got to win that election first. |
http://csua.com/feed/