why always blaming Syria for loose border?

[clevin]

http://www.crooksandliars.com/Media/Play/16084/2/LE-SpecterSchoolsLieberman.mov/
Lieberman did it again.
If Syria were to lock up border, where can those Iraq refuges go? Syria gets millions of those ppl, should they stay inside iraq and get killed?

I think Lieberman is considering himself more jewish than american.

[dpaanlka]

Yes, millions of them will die if they stay in Iraq. Millions.

[princealfie]

Liebermann is a neg here.

Never cared for him.

My Yale LDS ward FHE involved one night of punk'd his backyard. Classic move.

[skunk]

Yes, millions of them will die if they stay in Iraq. Millions.How can you be so flippant about lives your government has trashed and left in ruins? Don't you understand what has happened here?The year 2003 was a watershed in the modern history of the Middle East. The results of the invasion are going to be rumbling around the region for a long time - a generation or more.

Some are already clear. The war has already produced the biggest movement of people in the Middle East since the Palestinian refugee crisis after the establishment of Israel in 1948.

More than a million refugees from Iraq are in Syria, around a million more in Jordan and almost two million have been displaced inside Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6476907.stm

[dpaanlka]

And that equates to millions dying... how?

[princealfie]

And that equates to millions dying... how?

Wow, inhumane :eek: :eek: :eek: :(

[skunk]

And that equates to millions dying... how?Work it out for yourself.

[dpaanlka]

Work it out for yourself.

Sure...

In related news, a majority of Iraqis seem to prefer us to Saddam according to this recent article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530762.ece

[j26]

Sure...

In related news, a majority of Iraqis seem to prefer us to Saddam according to this recent article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530762.ece

Would you rather have your nuts chopped off or your little finger?

I'm guessing finger, although that doesn't mean chopping your finger off is good ,does it?

Polls like that are pretty useless - it depends on how the question is asked (and who is asking).

[dpaanlka]

Would you rather have your nuts chopped off or your little finger?

I'm guessing finger, although that doesn't mean chopping your finger off is good ,does it?

Polls like that are pretty useless - it depends on how the question is asked (and who is asking).

Well they're not happy with us, but they were even less happy with Saddam. I don't get what you're trying to say. If a million people are fleeing Iraq now (as opposed to under Saddam, who they liked even less), maybe they're just sick of Iraq period and are glad the Saddam-less Iraq affords them the chance to finally get out.

[skunk]

Well they're not happy with us, but they were even less happy with Saddam. I don't get what you're trying to say. If a million people are fleeing Iraq now (as opposed to under Saddam, who they liked even less), maybe they're just sick of Iraq period and are glad the Saddam-less Iraq affords them the chance to finally get out.Well, obviously the poll wasn't taken among the refugees. If you can make the effort to picture the level of perceived threat which would be enough to make you uproot your entire family and go to a neighbouring country for your safety, with no resources whatsoever, you might just realise that figures such as these represent a mind-boggling scale of terror and disruption.

[princealfie]

Sure...

In related news, a majority of Iraqis seem to prefer us to Saddam according to this recent article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1530762.ece

Sorry but the Times UK is a rather unreliable source of information. I find it rather amusing needless to say.

The BBC didn't report anything.

[j26]

Well they're not happy with us, but they were even less happy with Saddam. I don't get what you're trying to say. If a million people are fleeing Iraq now (as opposed to under Saddam, who they liked even less), maybe they're just sick of Iraq period and are glad the Saddam-less Iraq affords them the chance to finally get out.

Or maybe they hated Saddams repression, but were afraid to do anything about it or they'd be killed. Now they face a real risk of being killed anyway and are running in fear of their lives.

I find it very unlikely that such a large proportion of the population (one in seven people) would simultaneously decide that they're sick of living in a country and decide to head off to a refugee camp, because it's much better :rolleyes: .

[Swarmlord]

What a great attitude. Nothing is worth sticking around and fixing, just run away somewhere else.

It seems like some here think that anything including tyranny and slavery is preferable to risking death. Everyone should just cower in their little hovels and be grateful that at least they are alive.:eek:

[princealfie]

What a great attitude. Nothing is worth sticking around and fixing, just run away somewhere else.

It seems like some here think that anything including tyranny and slavery is preferable to risking death. Everyone should just cower in their little hovels and be grateful that at least they are alive.:eek:

Yeah, hiding in my compound here... bunker in South SLC :eek:

[OldCorpse]

Actually, there's a much simpler argument to be made, and which I've made to my conservative friends, and it's always shut them up... they had no counterargument.

The U.S. and Israel always complain about how Syria/Iran or the Palestinian Authority don't do enough to stop terrorist traffic across their borders. Meanwhile, those countries and governments claim that they are doing all they can. So who is right?

Factually - you cannot know if they are in fact doing all they can to stop terrorist traffic across borders, or in fact encouraging it.

However, my answer is very simple - the U.S./Israel are liars when they claim that the very fact that there's such traffic constitutes proof that Iran, Syria and other countries are NOT doing all they can to stop such traffic. Why? Here's why:

If the U.S. thinks it is within the power of the Syrians or Iranians or Palestinians to stop such traffic, they are welcome to show how. THe U.S. in that case is just as guilty of letting terrorists cross the Syrian and Iranian borders as are Syria and Iran - after all, there are two sides to the border. If you think the Syrian/Iranian side can stop traffic - why can't you, on the other side do the same? The U.S. and allied forces have control over their side of the border inside Iraq, just as the Syrians/Iranians have control over theirs. If they are supposed to stop all traffic, why aren't the U.S./UK supposed to do the same on theirs?

Fact is, terrorists will move across borders if they put their minds to it. The fact that there is traffic MEANS NOTHING wrt. the Syrians/Iranians/Palestinians wanting such traffic. They can do nothing about it. Maybe they do support such traffic, maybe they don't, but don't tell us that they or we, or anybody controls that traffic.

I don't see the U.S. controlling its own borders, or Israel for that matter. Why the higher standard for Iranians/Syrians/Palestinians? It's like asking the Palestinians to "stop all terror 100%" - how come Israel doesn't stop all terror? After all, it was a Jewish terrorist who killed Rabin! If Israel cannot control Israeli terrorists who kill Israeli high officials within Israeli borders, why do they demand the impossible from Palestinian Authority to control their terrorists 100%?

Fact is, that the border control issue is another baseless accusation with no proof. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but we know one thing: the U.S. has zero proof of any Iranian/Syrian complicity in letting terrorists cross their borders. NONE.

[princealfie]

Actually, there's a much simpler argument to be made, and which I've made to my conservative friends, and it's always shut them up... they had no counterargument.

The U.S. and Israel always complain about how Syria/Iran or the Palestinian Authority don't do enough to stop terrorist traffic across their borders. Meanwhile, those countries and governments claim that they are doing all they can. So who is right?

Factually - you cannot know if they are in fact doing all they can to stop terrorist traffic across borders, or in fact encouraging it.

However, my answer is very simple - the U.S./Israel are liars when they claim that the very fact that there's such traffic constitutes proof that Iran, Syria and other countries are NOT doing all they can to stop such traffic. Why? Here's why:

If the U.S. thinks it is within the power of the Syrians or Iranians or Palestinians to stop such traffic, they are welcome to show how. THe U.S. in that case is just as guilty of letting terrorists cross the Syrian and Iranian borders as are Syria and Iran - after all, there are two sides to the border. If you think the Syrian/Iranian side can stop traffic - why can't you, on the other side do the same? The U.S. and allied forces have control over their side of the border inside Iraq, just as the Syrians/Iranians have control over theirs. If they are supposed to stop all traffic, why aren't the U.S./UK supposed to do the same on theirs?

Fact is, terrorists will move across borders if they put their minds to it. The fact that there is traffic MEANS NOTHING wrt. the Syrians/Iranians/Palestinians wanting such traffic. They can do nothing about it. Maybe they do support such traffic, maybe they don't, but don't tell us that they or we, or anybody controls that traffic.

I don't see the U.S. controlling its own borders, or Israel for that matter. Why the higher standard for Iranians/Syrians/Palestinians? It's like asking the Palestinians to "stop all terror 100%" - how come Israel doesn't stop all terror? After all, it was a Jewish terrorist who killed Rabin! If Israel cannot control Israeli terrorists who kill Israeli high officials within Israeli borders, why do they demand the impossible from Palestinian Authority to control their terrorists 100%?

Fact is, that the border control issue is another baseless accusation with no proof. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but we know one thing: the U.S. has zero proof of any Iranian/Syrian complicity in letting terrorists cross their borders. NONE.

Wow, why isn't this guy president? Very succinct.

[Ugg]

What a great attitude. Nothing is worth sticking around and fixing, just run away somewhere else.

It seems like some here think that anything including tyranny and slavery is preferable to risking death. Everyone should just cower in their little hovels and be grateful that at least they are alive.:eek:

Hovels? I didn't realize that Iraq was a third world country?

Some people think that by invading a mostly defenseless country, dismissing the armed forces, opening the borders to all and sundry, having no post war plan, destroying overnight the infrastructure of a country and failing to provide any security for the vast majority of the citizens, that that is preferable to Saddam?

What planet to do you live on?

[zimv20]

What a great attitude. Nothing is worth sticking around and fixing, just run away somewhere else.


when you say things like that, it makes me think you really don't have any idea what's going on in iraq -- how much the situation has deteriorated even in the past year. it's gone from bad to much, much worse.

i read a piece last night about journalists' experiences, here (http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4301), which i found very informative.

[skunk]

What a great attitude. Nothing is worth sticking around and fixing, just run away somewhere else.

It seems like some here think that anything including tyranny and slavery is preferable to risking death. Everyone should just cower in their little hovels and be grateful that at least they are alive.:eek:Why don't you go and show us how it's done? Oh, and take your wife and children, too, just for a bit of realism.

[Swarmlord]

Why don't you go and show us how it's done? Oh, and take your wife and children, too, just for a bit of realism.

Do you really think that I (or most other Americans for that matter) would just pack up what could fit into our cars and just drive to Mexico or Canada if we were being attacked whether from invaders or roving gangs of malcontents? I don't think so. And to think that one's principles should be compromised because they have a wife and kids makes me sick to my stomach.

God, what a pathetic country this would be if our forefathers had been as squeemish to do what had to be done to make us what we are today.

[princealfie]

This is the real story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070409/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_insider_s_account

http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=0300110154

[OldCorpse]

There is now a civil war going on in Iraq. It is based on ethnic (Kurd vs Arab) and religious differences (Shiite and Sunni). There is widespread ethnic and religious cleansing and mass killings.

This did not happen during Saddam's time - there was not Shiite vs Sunni civil war with mass murder.

So, that's the background to the exodus - mass murder and civil war.

Why do the "cowards flee instead of staying and fighting?"

Ask the Jews of WWII - how many wish they had a chance to flee?

Ask the Jews from the time of Moses who took them out of Egypt.

Mass killings in a civil war - damn those cowardly Iraqis fleeing death. We destabilized their country, our invasion ushered in the civil war, and when they flee for their lives, they get called cowards by our conservatives. Sounds to me like compassionate conservatism. Typical. Then again, those who support this war and this criminal administration - well what else do you expect? Swell folks, those!

[skunk]

Do you really think that I (or most other Americans for that matter) would just pack up what could fit into our cars and just drive to Mexico or Canada if we were being attacked whether from invaders or roving gangs of malcontents? I don't think so. And to think that one's principles should be compromised because they have a wife and kids makes me sick to my stomach.

God, what a pathetic country this would be if our forefathers had been as squeemish to do what had to be done to make us what we are today.As a country which has never suffered an invasion, you have a lot of gall to take such a tone. This is nothing to do with principles. Are you telling me that if there was no work, no security and no future, you would keep your family in harm's way for some idiotic and irrelevant principle? What principle would that be?

And what are you today?

[princealfie]

As a country which has never suffered an invasion, you have a lot of gall to take such a tone. This is nothing to do with principles. Are you telling me that if there was no work, no security and no future, you would keep your family in harm's way for some idiotic and irrelevant principle? What principle would that be?

The principle of free markets I suppose for Mr. SL.

[Swarmlord]

This is the real story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070409/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_insider_s_account

http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=0300110154

And those are valid reasons to pick up and leave?

You know, if there more than just handful of people there that were real leaders interested in their country rather than who was a Shiite, a Sunni or a Kurd, they might have been allowed to run things differently.

I blame us only for leaving too many troublemakers alive to cause trouble after the bombing stopped. There shouldn't have been any previous Iraqi military members left to cause any trouble.

The Iraqi leadership is getting ever closer to taking full control of their country. They're frickin' Iraqis! They know everything there is to know about Iraqis, right? What are their plans to deal with all these delicate cultural issues they all wallow in rather than choose a bright future for their country?

I want to hear more about what the Iraqis are doing to help themselves out, not what mistakes we supposedly made.

[skunk]

I want to hear more about what the Iraqis are doing to help themselves out, not what mistakes we supposedly made.Your boy should have thought of that before he broke the country, shouldn't he?

Oh, and if your answer is that not enough people were killed, how many would be enough? A million? Two million?

[Swarmlord]

<snip>
This did not happen during Saddam's time - there was not Shiite vs Sunni civil war with mass murder.
<snip>

Great. That's the liberal answer. We should have kept a dictator in charge because he kept the peace.

You keep picking and choosing your examples, but the Poles and the Russians didn't run and they ain't speaking German today either.

[Swarmlord]

Your boy should have thought of that before he broke the country, shouldn't he?

Saddam should have before he mobilized his military into Kuwait, got whipped and then violated the peace treaty.

I can't believe that people want to continue to empower dictators all over the world by allowing them to disregard treaties, thumb their noses at the rest of the world and have no consequences. No wonder they all pull these stunts all the time. They know liberals will run to their defense.

[princealfie]

Saddam should have before he mobilized his military into Kuwait, got whipped and then violated the peace treaty.

I can't believe that people want to continue to empower dictators all over the world by allowing them to disregard treaties, thumb their noses at the rest of the world and have no consequences. No wonder they all pull these stunts all the time. They know liberals will run to their defense.

But didn't the current admin disregard a ton of treaties and international edicts too? What's the difference between the two?

[skunk]

Great. That's the liberal answer. We should have kept a dictator in charge because he kept the peace.It wasn't up to you to decide whether to "keep" a dictator in charge. You didn't seem to mind in the case of Pakistan, Chile, Usbekhistan, Russia, Spain, Haiti, Argentina. Why so picky?

[clevin]

well, this goes really fast,
this morning, DRshow's second hour, one of the iraqi former leader "think", so far the civilian death toll is 300,000, and with millions of refuges outside iraq, if they were to stay, Im sorry to say that number would easily top million.

The problem I have is, Syria, practically, can NOT lock up border, why, when WH criticize Syria's loose border, while providing NO help for refuges at all? Is politics so above human life? rhetoric so above reality? and Do they really understand the situation there at all?

[OldCorpse]

Great. That's the liberal answer. We should have kept a dictator in charge because he kept the peace.

You keep picking and choosing your examples, but the Poles and the Russians didn't run and they ain't speaking German today either.

No picking and choosing examples. Invading a country solely for reasons of regime change is illegal under international law. Iraq was illegally invaded. We shouldn't have invaded Iraq - PERIOD. Regardless of whether Saddam kept the peace or not. It was not our right to do so. Just as it would not be Saddam's right to invade the U.S. because he doesn't like our form of government. The only way to achieve regime change is from within - when the country has socially and politically evolved to do so.

Poland and Russia were invaded by the Germans - it was totally right for them to fight, and it was right for us to help them. Completely different situation.

The recognized priniciples of international law are (as I've outlined in other posts): you may not invade another country for any reason, however, if you or your allies are illegally invaded you have the right to strike back and defeat the invader. Thus, to quote from my other post:

"People unthinkingly repeat things like "it is right to invade a country to 'free' them from a dictator".

You need to start re-thinking such cliches and unexamined assumptions. The reality is that invading a county like that is doing the population no favors. The reason a country has an indigineus dictator, is that that's their stage of socio-political development. When they mature and evlove, they'll overthrow the dictator on their own. They'll change their form of government, when it fails to meet their needs. Look at Soviet Russia. Their system failed. Therefore, they changed quite on thier own. Would you have preferred to go to war - perhaps nuclear war - to force them to change their system, to "liberate" them in the name of democracy? It would have ended in disaster - instead, they evolved quite on their own, thank you.

Oh, and btw., we did intervene in Russia against the Communists back in the 1920's, and we failed miserably. You cannot, and must not interfere in the internal struggles of other societies. Vietnam is another example - we failed miserably after killing millions of Vietnamese. In due time, they'll change their system - on their own timetable, using their own methods (they already are changing, and guess what, Bush came to visit to promote trade relations, LOL!). Look at China - we intervened, and it was a disaster.

There are only a few circumstances under which it is rigth to intervene - if a country is invaded by an external enemy. Iraq invades Kuwait - go to war against Iraq. No society should have their form of government determined by invading armies, whether those armies are Iraqi or U.S. or whatever. The eveolution has to be internal - every sovereign society has to determine their own system of governance.

So too with Iraq: when they invaded Kuwait, it was right to strike back at them. But it was wrong to overthrow Saddam based purely on the doctrine of regime change... this is illegal under U.N. law, and for a reason. This was also why the U.S. cooked up all those other reasons to invade (fake WMD claims etc.). Yet we sometimes hear about how it was right to overthrow Saddam based on no more than that he was a "bad man", "vicious dictator" etc. There is no such right - and it is stupid from every point of view. The results of doing such a thing in a society that is not prepared for it, can be seen today in Iraq.

Iraq today is a far more bloody and dangerous place than during Saddam's reign. He kept it together, with no suicide bombers, without open civil war and religious extremism and foreign terrorists running free.

The brutal truth is this: every society has the government they deserve. When that goverment no longer works for them, when they have evolved, when they are ready, they will be change it, by means bloody or peaceful. Nobody can or should do it for them (again, barring a system imposed by an invading foreign army)."

[Swarmlord]

But didn't the current admin disregard a ton of treaties and international edicts too? What's the difference between the two?

Could you be more general? What you talking about? Colonists and indian tribes?

[Swarmlord]

It wasn't up to you to decide whether to "keep" a dictator in charge. You didn't seem to mind in the case of Pakistan, Chile, Usbekhistan, Russia, Spain, Haiti, Argentina. Why so picky?

Can you go back even further in history? I have relatives that were Huns and Prussians too, so maybe I should perform my mea culpas here before commenting more. :rolleyes:

Saddam violated 17 UN resolutions during a time our entire attention was focused on the region. His mistake. He and his country paid for it. History will show whether they turn this into a bright turning point in their history or just another flop into tribal and religious infighting that they are so famous for during the past couple thousand years.

[miloblithe]

I can't believe that people want to continue to empower dictators all over the world by allowing them to disregard treaties, thumb their noses at the rest of the world and have no consequences. No wonder they all pull these stunts all the time. They know liberals will run to their defense.

Who wants to empower dictators? That's a total straw man argument. We can all agree that brutal dictators are bad (well, most US administrations have a spotty record on this front actually--the US has supported many many dictators), but the real question is what do you do about it? Do you think that invading countries without effective reconstruction and development plans is the way to go?

Do you think the US should invade China? Cuba? Myanmar? North Korea? Somalia? Fiji? Iran? Laos? Libya? Mauritania? Oman? Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? Qatar? Thailand? Turkmenistan? Vietnam? The Vatican?

[Swarmlord]

No picking and choosing examples. Invading a country solely for reasons of regime change is illegal under international law. Iraq was illegally invaded. We shouldn't have invaded Iraq - PERIOD. <snip>

Interesting how violating a peace treaty after being whipped by the world community and then violating UN resolutions doesn't mean anything anymore. I guess that isn't international law. I'd sure like to know who's drawing up and enforcing those so called international laws if not the UN and it's members. Must be the Federation Space agency or something I'm not familiar with.

[skunk]

His mistake. He and his country paid for it.You showed them, eh? You must be very proud.

[Swarmlord]

<snip> Do you think that invading countries without effective reconstruction and development plans is the way to go?

Do you think the US should invade China? Cuba? Myanmar? North Korea? Somalia? Fiji? Iran? Laos? Libya? Mauritania? Oman? Pakistan? Saudi Arabia? Qatar? Thailand? Turkmenistan? Vietnam? The Vatican?

Do you think that sitting on your thumbs while dictators do whatever they want after getting spanked is the way to go if you can't get concensus on rebuilding the place? As I understand it we nuked Japan without talking too much about the aftereffects. I don't remember reading about the rebuilding plans in place before D-Day either. Get real.

We didn't just spank any of those places out of an adjacent country and monitor their violation of the peace treaty, so no.

You don't think that allowing dictators to violate agreements after a war empowers them and those other dictators that observe from their countries. Interesting.

[pseudobrit]

What a great attitude. Nothing is worth sticking around and fixing, just run away somewhere else.

I think they've had enough of our brand of fixing, don't you?

[Swarmlord]

You showed them, eh? You must be very proud.

Haven't heard a peep out of him, his sons or a lot of the other dictators in the world recently.

Actually it's more enlightening to see what the UN shows people. Obviously the problems of Darfur and other regions we haven't intervened in are getting solved by those enlightened organizations. Talk about learning what doesn't work.

[Swarmlord]

I think they've had enough of our brand of fixing, don't you?

Actually I do. I hope their leadership step up to the plate and concentrate on what needs to be done.

[j26]

...Do you think the US should invade ...The Vatican?
:D :D :D
Actually I never thought of that. The Vatican is a dictatorship that is arguably responsible for the deaths of millions. Maybe a wee invasion would sweep away the evil regime. And it would be easy too - look at their army
http://www.atwtravel.net/img/italy/vatican/vatican_guards.jpg

[miloblithe]

As I understand it we nuked Japan without talking too much about the aftereffects. I don't remember reading about the rebuilding plans in place before D-Day either. Get real.

http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/etc/glossary.html

SWNCC (pronounced swink) is an abbreviation for the State-War-Navy Coordinating Committee. It was an agency of the United States that was established in December of 1944 with the aim of coordinating the postwar policies of the three following the end of the war. The committee coordinated the policies of each department, and after receiving the approval of the Joint Chiefs of Staff they became the policy of the United States government. The Subcommittee on the Far East (SFE) was formed under SWNCC to draft a plan for the occupation of Japan. Two of the major policy statements produced by SWNCC were "United States Initial Post-Surrender Policy for Japan" (SWNCC150/4) and "Reform of the Japanese Governmental System" (SWNCC228).

Just because you don't remember reading about them, doesn't mean that they didn't exist. Do you want me to find one for Germany as well?

It's an interesting tactic, assuming that because I think that this invasion was unworkable and that the occupation is doomed to failure that I'm a coward who can think of nothing better than to sit on my thumbs.

I think that real change takes time and effort. There's no quick solution, and often such efforts seem to make things worse. And saying that this invasion has made things worse, which I believe, is in no way an endorsement of Saddam Hussein. It's bizarre that you think that it is.

Good points:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/rebuilding-iraq-0316.html

The occupation and eventual reconstruction of post-war Japan were successful thanks to 10 significant conditions not present in Iraq, Dower said. These were:

1) Legitimacy of occupation. A formal war was followed by a decisive defeat and unconditional surrender. U.S. allies also saw the occupation as legitimate. Serious planning for the occupation of Japan began in 1942.

2) Consistency. Japan had an intact government. Emperor Hirohito declared war, surrendered and continued as head of state until 1971.

3) Cohesion. While politically diverse, Japan was socially cohesive, without Iraq's religious, ethnic and cultural conflicts.

4) Security. Japan, an island, faced no domestic security issues. "The hardships were staggering," Dower said. "But there was no terror."

5) Civil institutions. Japan had a "deep tradition of democracy and civil society," Dower said. All the structures essential for reform were in place. Not so in Iraq, he noted.

6) Exhaustion. Japan was at war from 1931 to 1945, leaving 3 million dead, 10-15 million people homeless, rampant unemployment, malnutrition and disease. Defeat brought "liberation from death. Suddenly, the air raids stopped. They could start over," Dower said. "It was a psychological relief."

7) Clear goals for the occupation. "The Americans wanted demilitarization and democratization. They were clear about what this would involve--changing the civil code, land reform, etc.," he said.

8) Privacy. "Japan fell out of the public eye in 1945, as attention turned to the Cold War in Europe. They got breathing space. General MacArthur and his staff did not get involved in U.S. electoral politics."

9) External enemies. After 1947, the United States used the threat of Communism to persuade the Japanese government to support an extended occupation. Today, even after the end of the Cold War, 40,000 troops remain stationed there.

10) Economic conditions and policies. The Japanese economy was crushed after the war. Economic sabotage by Japanese took some toll, but there was no profiteering by Americans. Liberal economic policies inspired by the New Deal gave the Japanese government a larger role in the economy. This is not the "sweeping privatization" expected in Iraq.

[miloblithe]

:D :D :D
Actually I never thought of that. The Vatican is a dictatorship that is arguably responsible for the deaths of millions. Maybe a wee invasion would sweep away the evil regime. And it would be easy too - look at their army
http://www.atwtravel.net/img/italy/vatican/vatican_guards.jpg

Have you learned nothing! Toppling the army is the easy part. It's the occupation that kills you!

[OldCorpse]

Interesting how violating a peace treaty after being whipped by the world community and then violating UN resolutions doesn't mean anything anymore. I guess that isn't international law. I'd sure like to know who's drawing up and enforcing those so called international laws if not the UN and it's members. Must be the Federation Space agency or something I'm not familiar with.

Defeating Iraq when they invaded Kuwait was the right thing to do - and I certainly supported it.

When Saddam violated U.N. resolutions, there should have been appropriate consequences - and in fact, there were extensive sanctions.

That did NOT give us the right to invade Iraq. If you are threatened by a murderer, you are right to kill him. When a kid steals a candy bar - you do not kill him, you mete out the appropriate punishment.

Same here. It's a question of punishment fitting the crime. Iraq invades - we go to war. Iraq breaks U.N. resolutions - we take other measures, like sanctions, bombing etc.

In fact, the sanctions regime was very effective in fulfilling its goals: it utterly prevented Saddam from getting WMDs (or indeed any military equipment), it put pressure on their infrastructure and it kept Saddam in Iraq isolated and helpless. Following U.N. law worked remarkably well. Meanwhile, illegally invading Iraq resulted in a total mess: more strife, more danger to the world, more terrorism, more terrorist training, more instability not to mention vast destruction and a horrific strain on our budget. Following the law works. Breaking it, results in disaster.

[solvs]

Liebermann is a neg here.

Never cared for him.
Didn't like him as a Dem. Didn't like him as an Ind. Don't like him as a Repub. Hasn't changed.

What a great attitude. Nothing is worth sticking around and fixing, just run away somewhere else.

It seems like some here think that anything including tyranny and slavery is preferable to risking death. Everyone should just cower in their little hovels and be grateful that at least they are alive.:eek:
No, we just have a problem with how we went about this. We were attacked, we started fighting back, then pulled resources to go to a country that had nothing to do with those attacks and was no threat to us. We had other options than to invade and make things worse for them. They want us out, we continue to make things worse, and yet we stay. We have a problem with that.

Don't you?

I want to hear more about what the Iraqis are doing to help themselves out, not what mistakes we supposedly made.
How do you think we got to where we are today? There are no solutions to fix this. There's nothing left but to see where we went wrong. I'd say hopefully we learn from our mistakes, but we apparently don't.

No supposed about it BTW, we definitely made mistakes.

I can't believe that people want to continue to empower dictators all over the world
Those same people you're defending do it all the time. Still are doing it now. As has been mentioned many times in this thread. What made Saddam worth it above others? Are we the world police sometimes, why not others? Why invade a country that was no threat to us while ignoring those that are, pulling resources from the areas where we were fighting those that were, and flat out ignoring others? Was there no other choice?

So many things we could have done differently, but we didn't, and you're damn right we're going to be mad about that. I don't care how bad he was, the very fact that we can argue we're just as bad tells me we did something wrong. And we still don't even know why. Why did we invade? Seriously. Why? So many other dictators, so many other threats, and we wanted to invade Iraq to get Saddam. At all costs. Even at the cost of losing in the 'stans. Where the real terrorists who attacked us were. And probably still are. Just so we could screw up Iraq so that it's almost as bad as it was with a tyranny in charge, creating more terrorists, pissing off the rest of the world, and a majority of our own people. Making things just as bad, if not worse, for a lot of the Iraqi people, as well as others in the region.

Tell us again how we're better.

Do you think that sitting on your thumbs while dictators do whatever they want
You missed the part where we do that anyway. We were with him before we were against him. Same for many who were and are worse. Why Saddam? Why Iraq? Ask yourself that.

And again, if they're no better off, how is what we did better for them (or us)?

Oh, and Japan attacked us. Hitler was a threat to us, and our allies. Saddam was a threat when he invaded Kuwait. That's why we kept him sanctioned, and continued to bomb his facilities straight through Clinton's reign. There were other options, other ways we could do this. And we could have focused on those who were really a threat. Who really attacked us. But we didn't. We invaded Iraq, without the proper resources, without the proper planning, weakening us, doing everything exactly wrong, and all you can say is that we're weak and want us to lose and want evil dictators to kill puppies or whatever.

No, I want us to be strong. I want us to defend ourselves. I want us to help those who are defenseless. Those who live under tyranny. None of that is happening here. We haven't saved anyone. We've made a mess that we don't know how to fix. That we're only making worse.

I don't know what the answer is. No one does. But we can definitely blame those who put us into this situation in the first place. And it ain't Saddam.