 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Pondering
Lion King
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1297
|
 Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 2:56 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| 45degreeN wrote: |
As far as Saddam is concerned look at it from his perspective. How trustworthy is America's foreign policy if one day he is installed in power and the next thrown out of office. |
I like how you skip over the whole part where he invaded a neighbor and was flagrantly thumbing his nose at the UN (that whole nuclear weapons thing)....but of course your answer fits the narrative so much better....
and of course America had only 1 administration in the 20+ years of Saddam's rule....
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
45degreeN
King Kong
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2458
Location: Salem Oregon
|
| Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Theoretically our foreign policy should be non partisan. Having a longer term perspective than just our current interests. What Saddam turned out to be was not far from what he was originally, a thug. We knew it from the start and yet we thought maybe we could "control" his bad side. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6842
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
45, you've finally said something in this thread that actually holds some water.
| Quote: | | Having a longer term perspective than just our current interests. What Saddam turned out to be was not far from what he was originally, a thug. We knew it from the start and yet we thought maybe we could "control" his bad side. |
Indeed the perspective of this Nation and others who are involved in international politics is short sighted. We have Saddam, Noriega, and a few others to show for it, and unfortunately it isn't only the US in this boat. France, England and other power players have made the same mistakes throughout history.
Although, as Trinity pointed out; the contemporary issues often outweigh the longer term potential for political problems.
Now then, the reality of the situation is this: the US is a world-power. The world looks to us for leadership and involvement, particularly when the issues of a region pose a significant political, economic, or violent threat to more than just that particular reason. We have the means to step in where wanted and the thick skin to withstand the whining and backstabbing from the governments that decide they no longer like the involvement they invited.
I for one simply hope that our government does not decide to adopt the elitist, and self-absorbed political posture you seem to promote. As soon as we close our doors to the world and refuse to 'meddle' you can be guaranteed we will be in another world war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 45degreeN wrote: | | If you assume that the radical elements of Islam represent the whole of Islam then your logic might hold water. They don't though. Not by a long shot. |
45N... I am sure you aware this is a popular debating tactic. What you do is take your opponents words out of context, say that they said something (that they didn't) and then beat them to death over your fabricated analogy. I have never stated that the Islamic Fascist represent the 'whole of Islam'. Not once have I stated that... yet, even after I asked you in my previous post to quit misrepresenting what I write... here you are again... 
I have concluded through observations and knowledge of Islam that the majority of Muslims are complicit in the acts of the Islamic Fascists in that they provide almost zero opposition to their actions and allow them safe haven... not that they represent their views, but they are sympathetic to their cause.
I do hope that is clear enough for you...
| Quote: | | Iraq has some of the most Holy sites (to the the Shiites) in the whole world. For over 1000 years a non Muslin to go there was blasphemy. |
You know... it is really really really funny that this should come up in your argument as after we liberated Iraq, the Shiite majority was finally allowed to make their pilgrimage to Ali's tomb in An Najaf. I distinctly remember watching the masses walking down a road we were traveling on wondering what in tarnation was going on... I found out afterward that when Saddam was in power the Sunni minority wouldn’t allow this pilgrimage to their Holy Sites.... and it was the blasphemous... defiling infidels that provided the opportunity to go.
| Quote: | | As far as Saddam is concerned look at it from his perspective. How trustworthy is America's foreign policy if one day he is installed in power and the next thrown out of office. Sadly he isn't even the first one to have this happen. The same might just be said of the Shah in Iran we installed him in power because he was pro western and didn't lift a finger to protect the shah when revolution came to throw him out. (Need I mention Noriega also) |
Funny how you left out the little parts about Saddam invading a neighboring country... and Norieaga running coke and terrorizing our soldiers in Panama... but... I have come to realize you are not going to let the totality of the facts get in your way when forming opinions. Nope... by doing that... well... removing them from power just might make sense...
| Quote: | | History is full of American interference in other countries and when the blowback comes we sit and wonder what happened. It is hypocrisy at the highest levels. |
History is indeed full of American 'interference'... perhaps you come try to persuade France... Germany... Eastern Europe... South Korea... Panama... Kuwait... Afghanistan... and now Iraq... about how terrible an influence the United States has been.
Last edited by Trinity1 on Wed May 28, 2008 5:27 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 5:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pondering wrote: | | 45degreeN wrote: |
As far as Saddam is concerned look at it from his perspective. How trustworthy is America's foreign policy if one day he is installed in power and the next thrown out of office. |
I like how you skip over the whole part where he invaded a neighbor and was flagrantly thumbing his nose at the UN (that whole nuclear weapons thing)....but of course your answer fits the narrative so much better....
and of course America had only 1 administration in the 20+ years of Saddam's rule....
|
Ah... it is good to see that I'm not the only one one who has made this observation.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
45degreeN
King Kong
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2458
Location: Salem Oregon
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 5:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just maybe the choices America has made historically and recently have been in our own best interests not the interests of the other people involved. A very short sighted way of looking at things.
Wasn't there some other alternative to Saddam? I dont know for sure. We all know that Saddam certainly wanted to take over Iraq at that time and we just supported his efforts with money and guns(thanks to the CIA). Our reputation has suffered in the eyes of the Iraqis since then. We supported that thug at the expense of the lives of how many Iraqis killed, maimed and tortured by his regime. This certainly doesn't make us out to be the heroes in all of this.
It's called "blowback" a term that means unintended consequences of secret actions on our part that is unsupported by what is clearly visible in the press. Why the Muslims hate us given the clearly visible loving care that we've bestowed upon them. On the one hand we turn over vast sums of money to them for their oil and knife them in the back by supporting someone like Saddam Hussein.
We've never had their interests in mind, even when we so obviously and generously give them things. It has always been our interests that are at the core of the exchanges. To the world we are just an example of a "used car salesman." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trinity1
Emperor of the World
Joined: 02 Apr 2006
Posts: 3111
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 45degreeN wrote: | | Just maybe the choices America has made historically and recently have been in our own best interests not the interests of the other people involved. A very short sighted way of looking at things. |
Are you faulting our country for acting in its own self interests? I'm not following your train of thought here....
| Quote: | | Wasn't there some other alternative to Saddam? I dont know for sure. |
This fall's election is, or is going to be a prime example of it... I like to think it is pragmatism. On one hand, an Obama Presidency would be a national and international disaster... there is little doubt there... on the other hand... a McCain Presidency would be a disaster for the Republican Party. So... I chose country over party and flip the lever for McCain. Same thing with Saddam... you pick what you believe to be a better choice for the country... and here, we just picked wrong. International diplomacy is not an exact science.
| Quote: | | We've never had their interests in mind, even when we so obviously and generously give them things. It has always been our interests that are at the core of the exchanges. To the world we are just an example of a "used car salesman." |
I'm not sure you could qualify this not having their best interests in mind mantra... regardless... by acting in our own best interests is always the best policy as far as I'm concerned.
With that said, I do agree we need to think longer term when making decisions... but like I mentioned... it is not an exact science and simply claiming it is selfish greed is a smidge shallow… and defiantly partisan, in your analysis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6842
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just a bit about Iraq history....
| Quote: | Monarchy and republic
Ottoman rule over Iraq lasted until the Great War (World War I) when the Ottomans sided with Germany and the Central Powers. British forces invaded the country and suffered a major defeat at the hands of the Turkish army during the Siege of Kut (1915–16). British forces regrouped and captured Baghdad in 1917. An armistice was signed in 1918.
Image:LittleIraq.png
Iraq was carved out of the Ottoman Empire by the French and British as agreed in the Sykes-Picot Agreement. On 11 November 1920 it became a League of Nations mandate under British control with the name "State of Iraq".
Main article: Iraqi revolt against the British
Britain imposed a Hāshimite monarchy on Iraq and defined the territorial limits of Iraq without taking into account the politics of the different ethnic and religious groups in the country, in particular those of the Kurds and the Assyrians to the north. During the British occupation, the Shi'ites and Kurds fought for independence.
Faced with spiralling costs and influenced by the public protestations of war hero T.E. Lawrence in The Times, Britain replaced Arnold Wilson in October 1920 with new Civil Commissioner Sir Percy Cox. Cox managed to quell the rebellion, yet was also responsible for implementing the fateful policy of close cooperation with Iraq's Sunni minority.[2][3]
In the Mandate period and beyond, the British supported the traditional, Sunni leadership (such as the tribal shaykhs) over the growing, urban-based nationalist movement. The Land Settlement Act gave the tribal shaykhs the right to register the communal tribal lands in their own name. The Tribal Disputes Regulations gave them judiciary rights, whereas the Peasants' Rights and Duties Act of 1933 severely reduced the tenants', forbidding them to leave the land unless all their debts to the landlord had been settled. The British resorted to military force when their interests were threatened, as in the 1941 Rashīd `Alī al-Gaylānī coup. This coup led to a British invasion of Iraq using forces from the British Indian Army and the Arab Legion from Jordan.
[edit] Iraqi monarchy
Further information: List of Kings of Iraq
Emir Faisal, leader of the Arab revolt against the Ottoman sultān during the Great War, and member of the Sunni Hashimite family from Mecca, became the first king of the new state. He obtained the throne partly by the influence of T. E. Lawrence. Although the monarch was legitimized and proclaimed King by a plebiscite in 1921, nominal independence was only achieved in 1932, when the British Mandate officially ended.
In 1927, huge oil fields were discovered near Kirkuk and brought economic improvement. Exploration rights were granted to the Iraqi Petroleum Company, which despite the name, was a British oil company. King Faisal I was succeeded by his son Ghazi in December 1933. King Ghazi's reign lasted five and a half years. He claimed Iraqi sovereignty over Kuwait. An avid amateur racer, the king drove his car into a lamppost and died 3 April 1939. His son Faisal followed him to the throne.
King Faisal II (1935 – 1958) was the only son of King Ghazi I and Queen `Aliyah. The new king was four when his father died. His uncle 'Abd al-Ilah became regent (April 1939 – May 1953).
In 1945, Iraq joined the United Nations and became a founding member of the Arab League. At the same time, the Kurdish leader Mustafā Barzānī led a rebellion against the central government in Baghdad. After the failure of the uprising Barzānī and his followers fled to the Soviet Union.
In 1948, Iraq and five other Arab countries fought a war against the newly-declared State of Israel. Iraq was not a party to the cease-fire agreement signed in May 1949. The war had a negative impact on Iraq's economy. The government had to allocate 40 percent of available funds to the army and for the Palestinian refugees. Oil royalties paid to Iraq were halved when the pipeline to Haifa was cut. The war and the hanging of several Jewish businessmen led to the departure of most of Iraq's Jewish community.
Iraq signed the Baghdad Pact in 1956. It allied Iraq, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, and the United Kingdom. Its headquarters were in Baghdad. The Pact constituted a direct challenge to Egyptian president Gamal Abdal Nasser. In response, Nasser launched a media campaign that challenged the legitimacy of the Iraqi monarchy.
In February 1958, King Hussein of Jordan and `Abd al-Ilāh proposed a union of Hāshimite monarchies to counter the recently formed Egyptian-Syrian union. The prime minister Nuri as-Said wanted Kuwait to be part of the proposed Arab-Hāshimite Union. Shaykh `Abd-Allāh as-Salīm, the ruler of Kuwait, was invited to Baghdad to discuss Kuwait's future. This policy brought the government of Iraq into direct conflict with Britain, which did not want to grant independence to Kuwait. At that point, the monarchy found itself completely isolated. Nuri as-Said was able to contain the rising discontent only by resorting to ever greater political oppression.
Iraqi republic
Inspired by Nasser, officers from the Nineteenth Brigade known as "Free Officers", under the leadership of Brigadier Abd al-Karīm Qāsim (known as "az-Za`īm", 'the leader') and Colonel Abdul Salam Arif overthrew the Hashimite monarchy on 14 July 1958. King Faisal II and `Abd al-Ilāh were executed in the gardens of ar-Rihāb Palace. Their bodies (and those of many others in the royal family) were displayed in public. Nuri as-Said evaded capture for one day, but after attempting to escape disguised as a veiled woman, he was caught and shot.
The new government proclaimed Iraq to be a republic and rejected the idea of a union with Jordan. Iraq's activity in the Baghdād Pact ceased.
When Qāsim distanced himself from `Abd an-Nāsir, he faced growing opposition from pro-Egypt officers in the Iraqi army. `Arif, who wanted closer cooperation with Egypt, was stripped of his responsibilities and thrown in prison.
When the garrison in Mosul rebelled against Qāsim's policies, he allowed the Kurdish leader Barzānī to return from exile in the Soviet Union to help suppress the pro-Nāsir rebels.
In 1961, Kuwait gained independence from Britain and Iraq claimed sovereignty over Kuwait. Britain reacted strongly to Iraq's claim and sent troops to Kuwait to deter Iraq. Qāsim was forced to back down and in October 1963, Iraq recognized the sovereignty of Kuwait.
A period of considerable instability followed. Qāsim was assassinated in February 1963, when the Ba'ath Party took power under the leadership of General Ahmed Hasan al-Bakr (prime minister) and Colonel Abdul Salam Arif (president). Nine months later `Abd as-Salam Muhammad `Arif led a successful coup against the Ba'ath government. On 13 April 1966, President Abdul Salam Arif died in a helicopter crash and was succeeded by his brother, General Abdul Rahman Arif. Following the Six Day War of 1967, the Ba'ath Party felt strong enough to retake power (17 July 1968). Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr became president and chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC).
In 1967-1968 Iraqi communists launched an insurgency in southern Iraq.[4]
Barzānī and the Kurds who had begun a rebellion in 1961 were still causing problems in 1969. The secretary-general of the Ba`th party, Saddam Hussein, was given responsibility to find a solution. It was clear that it was impossible to defeat the Kurds by military means and in 1970 a political agreement was reached between the rebels and the Iraqi government.
Iraq's economy recovered sharply after the 1968 revolution. The Arif brothers had spent close to 90% of the national budget on the army but the Ba'ath government gave priority to agriculture and industry. The British Iraq Petroleum Company monopoly was broken when a new contract was signed with ERAP, a major French oil company. Later the IPC was nationalized. As a result of these policies Iraq experienced rapid economic growth.
During the 1970s, border disputes with Iran and Kuwait caused many problems. Kuwait's refusal to allow Iraq to build a harbour in the Shatt al-Arab delta strengthened Iraq's belief that conservative powers in the region were trying to control the Persian Gulf. Iran's occupation of numerous islands in the Strait of Hormuz didn't help alter Iraq's fears. The border disputes between Iraq and Iran were temporarily resolved with the signing of the Algiers Accord on 6 March 1975.
In 1972 an Iraqi delegation visited Moscow. The same year diplomatic relations with the US were restored. Relations with Jordan and Syria were good. Iraqi troops were stationed in both countries. During the 1973 October War, Iraqi divisions engaged Israeli forces.
In retrospect, the 1970s can be seen as a high point in Iraq's modern history. A new, young, technocratic elite was governing the country and the fast-growing economy brought prosperity and stability. Many Arabs outside Iraq considered it an example. However, the following decades would not be as favorable for the fledgling country.
Under Saddam
In July 1979, president Ahmed Hassan Al-Bakr resigned, and his chosen successor, Saddam Hussein, assumed the offices of both President and Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council. He was the de facto ruler of Iraq for some years before he formally came to power.
Territorial disputes with Iran led to an inconclusive and costly eight-year war, the Iran-Iraq War (1980 – 1988, termed Qādisiyyat-Saddām – 'Saddam's Qādisiyyah'), which devastated the economy. Iraq declared victory in 1988 but actually achieved a weary return to the status quo ante bellum. The war left Iraq with the largest military establishment in the Persian Gulf region but with huge debts and an ongoing rebellion by Kurdish elements in the northern mountains. The government suppressed the rebellion by using weapons on civilian targets.
Between 1986 and 1989, Hussein's Al-Anfal Campaign killed an estimated 100,000 to 200,000 Kurdish civilians.[5][6]
A mass chemical weapons attack on the city of Halabja in March 1988 during the Iran-Iraq War is usually attributed to Saddam's regime, although responsibility for the attack is a matter of some dispute[7]. Saddam maintained his innocence in this matter up to his execution in December 2006. Almost all current accounts, influenced by special interests, of the incident regard the Iraqi regime as the party responsible for the gas attack (as opposed to Iran), and the event has become iconic in depictions of Saddam's cruelty. Estimates of casualties range from several hundred to at least 7,000 people. The Iraqi government continued to be supported by a broad international community including most of the West, the Soviet Union, and the People's Republic of China, which continued sending arms shipments to combat Iran. Indeed, shipments from the US (though always a minority) increased after this date, and the UK awarded £400 million in trade credits to Iraq ten days after condemning the massacre [3].
In the late 1970s, Iraq purchased a French nuclear reactor, dubbed Osirak or Tammuz 1. Construction began in 1979. In 1980, the reactor site suffered minor damage due to an Iranian air strike, and in 1981, before the reactor could be completed, it was, in violation of International Laws, destroyed by the Israeli Air Force (see Operation Opera), greatly setting back Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
History of Iraq
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia |
Seems to me after reading all the hate-mongering rhetoric from 45 that I should see a whole lot more reference to US involvement in all that is wrong with Iraq... don't see it though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
45degreeN
King Kong
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2458
Location: Salem Oregon
|
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 3:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| And you expect the actions of covert operatives to get into common history books from not that long ago? Sure... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6842
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu May 29, 2008 6:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ah, I see....
Everything that is wrong in Iraq, or anywhere else is the fault of the secret operations of the US... the magic fiat of the paranoid and the haters. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
