Iraq

[Austin987345]

I was posting in the topic about the Pope's publicity on T.V. and was replying to a comment about the Pope and Iraq. I kinda went off on my view of the events that have transpired in Iraq and thought why not have a thread to see some of the opinions of people on the topic. Most of the topics that were already started were on specific topics about the Iraq war. I would just like to hear your opinion here on it overall and maybe go from there?

Here is part of my previous post:

I know several people that either fought there or are fighting there and they all support the war.  The people there have so many more freedoms that they weren't able to have in the past.  Right now the country isn't very stable, but that is what we are working to change.  Most of the average people there support the liberation, but do want U.S. forces out.  If I were them I would want the forces out too, but we have to stay for their safety until a larger Iraqi army is created - which is making progress.  I don't think there is anyone that can say that in 10 years from now Iraq won't be a better place than what it was 5 years ago.  Most of the people that are being fought there are radical terrorist groups and are mostly uneducated on history (they are taught to hate Americans, Europeans, or Christians etc. from when they are children and are not given the chance to see what all of these groups true intentions are).  They still use the crusades as a basis for their fight - that happened hundreds of years ago.  That would be like Americans having a war with the British because of colonial taxes from the 1700's again.    lol.  That would be ridiculous - everyone that had a part in it is long dead.  This is the kind of revenge mentality that many of the individuals we are fighting have.

My main point on the Iraq thing is that right now our main objective - not just for Americans, but for all countries who would like to see a better Iraq - should be to help build the Iraqi army, establish good living conditions for the Iraqis (plumbing, electricity, etc.), and get the government on track.  These are all taking place - but are going slowly.  You can't expect a war of any kind not to have drawbacks - when WWII happened, many European countries needed help to get back on their feet after Nazi Germany.  It is now time to help the Iraqis back on their feet after Saddam Hussein's rule for so long.  Although the war has its bad sides now, in the future the accomplishments will be irrefutable.  I wonder what would have happened if some of he Allied countries let Hitler stay in power in Germany and thought - "well hey, it's not affecting us very much just a bunch of people we don't know, we should stay out of it".  But none of the Allied countries said that and bad things happened during the war - but as I'm trying to say - the end justifies the means.

561036[/snapback]

[Austin987345]

By the way, before someone goes off on me for being a Bush supporter etc - I do not support many things that Bush does and that is not the case. I don't want this to turn into a debate over him. I know the whole thing about weapons of mass destruction or that Saddam Hussein had a part in the terrorist groups. I completely disagree with both of those. I do, however, support the Iraq war in getting rid of Hussien's rule, etc (as explained above). OK, just wanted to make that clear.

[__Kratos__]

Not to fond of the reasons for war and the lack of evidence, but with my whole heart support the troops that are trying to bring peace and democracy to Iraq and that are taking out terrorist cells.

[TheOriginalF]

The problem is that we were told time and time again that the point of going into Iraq was to remove a man who supposedly threatened the sovranty of the US and of the world, mostly through the stock pile of WMD's. Sure the people of Iraq are better off but in the process we haven't made any steps forward on **** (the war on terror). We have to remember that many countries are headed by manical dictators, but the purpose here isn't to remove all totalitarian dictators from power, but to round up "terrorists" and bring them to justice. If the point of the war on Iraq was simply to liberate the Iraqi people, than I have to ask where are we going to head next? Will we now be moving on to Mexico, Argentina, Guatemala, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, ect ect ect? No because that is not in the priority of our country, but what than separates Iraq from the countries I just mentioned? They all have histories of human rights abuses. So is it a war on terror or a war on fascism? We can't just switch gears in the middle of a campaign and decide to remove Saddam from power even though we found no evidence that he was involved in terrorism against the US.

The key difference between Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler lies in the fact the Hitler was backed by one of the most powerful armies in the world and actually did threaten the sovranty of the US and it's allies. Something had to be done when he started invading and overthrowing countries in Europe (not to mention he aligned himself with Japan, who had attacked us), Saddam invaded Kuwait and the global community backed him out, he hasn't invaded or threatened anybody since. There is a BIG difference between Hussein and Hitler.

[Austin987345]

The problem is that we were told time and time again that the point of going into Iraq was to remove a man who supposedly threatened the sovranty of the US and of the world, mostly through the stock pile of WMD's. Sure the people of Iraq are better off but in the process we haven't made any steps forward on **** (the war on terror). We have to remember that many countries are headed by manical dictators, but the purpose here isn't to remove all totalitarian dictators from power, but to round up "terrorists" and bring them to justice. If the point of the war on Iraq was simply to liberate the Iraqi people, than I have to ask where are we going to head next? Will we now be moving on to Mexico, Argentina, Guatemala, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, ect ect ect? No because that is not in the priority of our country, but what than separates Iraq from the countries I just mentioned? They all have histories of human rights abuses. So is it a war on terror or a war on fascism? We can't just switch gears in the middle of a campaign and decide to remove Saddam from power even though we found no evidence that he was involved in terrorism against the US.

The key difference between Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler lies in the fact the Hitler was backed by one of the most powerful armies in the world and actually did threaten the sovranty of the US and it's allies. Something had to be done when he started invading and overthrowing countries in Europe (not to mention he aligned himself with Japan, who had attacked us), Saddam invaded Kuwait and the global community backed him out, he hasn't invaded or threatened anybody since. There is a BIG difference between Hussein and Hitler.

561948[/snapback]

I totally agree with what you are saying. What I meant was that I think the Iraq cause should be supported NOW after what has already transpired. There are many people who keep saying - "take the troops out of Iraq!" If we did this, the only good things that we accomplished there would fall apart and not to mention we would be abandoning the country to fall back into the power of someone like Hussien. Now if you were to take this whole thing back to the beginning before we entered Iraq, I would not support going into Iraq etc. Iraq certainly didn't have much to do with the war on terror before we went in (at least not in the terrorists connected with Sep. 11th and were not threatening our security at home). There were no weapons of mass destruction found, and I don't believe there is any connection between Hussein and Bin Laden etc... What happened though is what happened and now we have to deal with it in the best way possible, and that is not by retreating. I'm talking about the NOW, not the past when this all started the Iraq conflict should be supported. We need to make sure we don't leave this country in a terrible condition. Although I know many countries don't agree with our intentions on going in (including many Americans including myself), that doesn't meant they have to point fingers and say "I told you so." The point is that now, our intentions are good and should be supported. When WWII ended, Germany wasn't left to rot because of the mistakes it had made before. The country was helped when the peoples' intentions turned to good ones. You are correct that Hitler was a much more powerful threat. The parrallel that I was really meaning to point out was that many European countries after WWII were helped to be restablished - which is what we need to do now in Iraq.

[TheOriginalF]

I totally agree with what you are saying.  What I meant was that I think the Iraq cause should be supported NOW after what has already transpired.  There are many people who keep saying - "take the troops out of Iraq!"  If we did this, the only good things that we accomplished there would fall apart and not to mention we would be abandoning the country to fall back into the power of someone like Hussien.  Now if you were to take this whole thing back to the beginning before we entered Iraq, I would not support going into Iraq etc.  Iraq certainly didn't have much to do with the war on terror before we went in (at least not in the terrorists connected with Sep. 11th and were not threatening our security at home).  There were no weapons of mass destruction found, and I don't believe there is any connection between Hussein and Bin Laden etc...  What happened though is what happened and now we have to deal with it in the best way possible, and that is not by retreating.  I'm talking about the NOW, not the past when this all started the Iraq conflict should be supported.  We need to make sure we don't leave this country in a terrible condition.  Although I know many countries don't agree with our intentions on going in (including many Americans including myself), that doesn't meant they have to point fingers and say "I told you so."  The point is that now, our intentions are good and should be supported.  When WWII ended, Germany wasn't left to rot because of the mistakes it had made before.  The country was helped when the peoples' intentions turned to good ones.  You are correct that Hitler was a much more powerful threat.  The parrallel that I was really meaning to point out was that many European countries after WWII were helped to be restablished - which is what we need to do now in Iraq.

562842[/snapback]

Oh I see where you're coming from now. Yes I agree removing the troops now would be heartless and stupid, unfortunately we have to stay and clean up what we started.

[lexi4]

The problem is that we were told time and time again that the point of going into Iraq was to remove a man who supposedly threatened the sovranty of the US and of the world, mostly through the stock pile of WMD's. Sure the people of Iraq are better off but in the process we haven't made any steps forward on **** (the war on terror). We have to remember that many countries are headed by manical dictators, but the purpose here isn't to remove all totalitarian dictators from power, but to round up "terrorists" and bring them to justice. If the point of the war on Iraq was simply to liberate the Iraqi people, than I have to ask where are we going to head next? Will we now be moving on to Mexico, Argentina, Guatemala, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, ect ect ect? No because that is not in the priority of our country, but what than separates Iraq from the countries I just mentioned? They all have histories of human rights abuses. So is it a war on terror or a war on fascism? We can't just switch gears in the middle of a campaign and decide to remove Saddam from power even though we found no evidence that he was involved in terrorism against the US.

The key difference between Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler lies in the fact the Hitler was backed by one of the most powerful armies in the world and actually did threaten the sovranty of the US and it's allies. Something had to be done when he started invading and overthrowing countries in Europe (not to mention he aligned himself with Japan, who had attacked us), Saddam invaded Kuwait and the global community backed him out, he hasn't invaded or threatened anybody since. There is a BIG difference between Hussein and Hitler.

561948[/snapback]

Well said and I completely agree.

[stillcrazy]

I didn't agree with the reasons for entering Iraq in the first place. However, I do support our troops who are trying to bring a stabilized peace to the country and rebuild what we destroyed. I will not support troops who go above and beyond the legal parameters to obtain information. In my view, it is not what America is about. However, these rouge military personnel are not as common as the anti-war anti-America people would have us believe.

I think once the new government in Iraq has a chance to get it's feet wet with running their own country, reliance on American and other coalition forces will be less and less.

In recent weeks, more Iraqis are taking the fight to the insurgents to rid their country of the one thing that prevents a complete withdrawl of troops. With the Iraq citizen taking more of a stand for their own country, I see a end sooner than later as I first thought.

It will take time, and we (meaning all countries that have forces in Iraq) will still loose members of our military. But as some one else said, In ten years from now Iraq will be a better place. I certainly hope they are right.

[zephyr]

Saddam invaded Kuwait and the global community backed him out, he hasn't invaded or threatened anybody since. There is a BIG difference between Hussein and Hitler

You forgot to mention Saddam's invasion of Iran in your post; and although he was the sweetheart of many at the time, it was still an attempted (fortunately failed) invasion, followed by a bloody war with over 1 million lives lost. In fact the lunatic managed to invade two of his neighbours, gas his own people, and turn the Iraqi soil into patches of mass graves. The reason he didn't threaten or invade anybody else since his invasion of Kuwait is simply because he couldn't, and not because he had all of a sudden turned into an angel ( remember the sanctions and the no fly zone imposed after the Kuwaiti war). I don't know about anybody else, but I for sure would not have wanted to witness his next move, a move that based on his record, he would have certainly made if he was given enough time and freedom. So, one's personal opinions on the American intervention in Iraq does not change the fact that the man was a warmonger, a mass murderer and a constant danger! Besides the obvious technical points, there is absolutely NO essential difference between Saddam and Hitler!

[TheOriginalF]

Saddam invaded Kuwait and the global community backed him out, he hasn't invaded or threatened anybody since. There is a BIG difference between Hussein and Hitler

You forgot to mention Saddam's invasion of Iran in your post; and although he was the sweetheart of many at the time, it was still an attempted (fortunately failed) invasion, followed by a bloody war with over 1 million lives lost. In fact the lunatic managed to invade two of his neighbors, gas his own people, and turn the Iraqi soil into patches of mass graves. The reason he didn't threaten or invade anybody else since his invasion of Kuwait is simply because he couldn't, and not because he had all of a sudden turned into an angel ( remember the sanctions and the no fly zone imposed after the Kuwaiti war). I don't know about anybody else, but I for sure would not have wanted to witness his next move, a move that based on his record, he would have certainly made if he was given enough time and freedom. So, one's personal opinions on the American intervention in Iraq does not change the fact that the man was a warmonger, a mass murderer and a constant danger! Besides the obvious technical points, there is absolutely NO essential difference between Saddam and Hitler!

564811[/snapback]

You really can't see the difference between Hussein and Hitler!?! Do you really think the military forces of Iraq have the ability to invade and overthrow the powerful nations of the world? The Iraqi military is a joke and the very idea that they ever posed a threat to the US is laughable.

You mentioned his invasion of Iran. First we have to take into account years of strained relations between the countries which lead to war. It wasn't just an unfounded attack, the main reason they invaded was due to a border dispute that had been escalating sice WWII. The border dispute lead to many problems between the different religious and cultural factions that found themselves at odds with the govt the border essentially assigned them.

Furthermore both countries began to assert their political powers by the mid 1970's. Before the overthrow of the Shah, Iran was trying to assert it's power in the middle east (largely due to the backing of the US), Iraq at the time was trying to build unity between the middle eastern community and was rejecting western influence, which Iran (at that time) was largely involved with (keep in mind that prior to the overthrow of the Shah, Iran was one of our biggest allies and was a tourist destination for much of the US elite). The differences between the cultures strained the relationship between the countries even further leading them closer to war. The relationship was damaged further when in 1975 the Kurds rebelled against the Iraqi govt and gained support from Iran who largely backed them in their quest to overthrow the Iraqi govt.

The final nail in the coffin was the the overthrow of the Shah in 1979 and the Islamic regime installed under the Khomeini. Iraq considered the Islamic revolution as a threat to their own govt, taking into account the Kurdish rebels and the Islamic extremism that was going around the Middle East, Iraq thought they might be the next to succumb to an Islamic revolution.

All of the above combined to create a hostile environment between the two Nations and in 1980 they finally went to war with each other when Iraq crossed the border that September.

What's more Iraq lost! They couldn't even conquer a country they was largely un-unified and un-organised after the Islamic revolution. So I fail to see how you can compare a war over border disputes and religious and cultural differences to the war Hitler launched on Europe in the 1940's. Hitler wanted control over Europe, if not the world, and he had the military might to at least make a very good attempt at doing it. Iraq was simply fighting with a country that they couldn't come to terms with over various disputes, which is something every country on earth is guilty of at one point or another. The Iran/Iraq war is hardly an example of a man who wanted to overthrow another country simple to expand his own borders and increase his power base.

It's also important to keep in mind that when Hussein gassed the Kurds it was because they were trying to overthrow the Iraqi govt. They are called Kurdish REBELS for a reason. I really can't believe that any country on Earth wouldn't fight back in some way when the Sovranty of their capital is danger. Was gassing them a good thing? No, but would it have been any better if the Iraqi military had killed them with guns? The US has done similar things on Native reserves, look at the Turtle Mountain Reserve in North Dakota for example. After a Native Uprising against the BIA (Bureau of Indian Affairs) the FBI and state and local police were brought in to regain order, what followed was a shoot out between the tribe members and the police which killed many innocent people including children. Look at the situations in Waco, TX and Ruby Ridge, or how President Reagan (Governor of California at the time) gassed peaceful protestors at Berkeley because the refused to disperse while protesting a garden being turned into a parking lot. While I don't condone any of these actions it's hardly exclusive to Saddam Hussein to attack and kill those a govt thought was in danger of uprising and threatening a country. Hitler on the other hand exterminated millions of Jews (and other minorities) because he disliked them, the Jews in Germany showed no sign of uprising or rebelling against Germany and posed no threat what so ever, which is a major difference between the two.

Did Hussein invade Kuwait? Yes. Was it unwarranted? Yes. But like I said in my first post, the situation was fixed and we have seen no indications what so ever that Hussein was indeed making an attempt to overthrow or invade any other countries.

Besides being ruthless dictators, a moniker both Hussein and Hitler share with countless other world leaders past and present, the glaring similarities just aren't there.

Edited April 9, 2005 by TheOriginalF

[zephyr]

The Iran/Iraq war is hardly an example of a man who wanted to overthrow another country simple to expand his own borders and increase his power base.

You're totally wrong there! Iran and Iraq had signed what was known as the Algiers agreement several years before the war, and there were no border disputes at the time the lunatic decided to invade Iran. In fact he tore up the Algiers agreement on the Iraqi tv the day after he had started his sudden attacks on Iran and published maps that showed large parts of Iran as the ' greater Arabia'; attached to Iraq of course. Contrary to your assumptions, he had every intention of invading Iran and expanding his ruthless rule and increase his power base (the same is valid for his invasion of Kuwait). The war was not the extension of some on going border dispute that just got out of hand. The revolution in Iran is not a valid reason for the invasion neither and was mainly used by the lunatic himself and those supporting him to justify his attacks and suck money from his Arab and non-Arab backers in his misadventure. Do you seriously believe that a regim change in one country is a valid reason for others to invade that country?

The Iraqi military might be a joke now or before the American invasion ( it had become so as the result of different wars and sanctions, just like Hitler's army at the closing stages of WW2)), but it certainly was no joke at the time and was a powerful army, backed up by money from oil (Iraq, and later in the war by some of his rich friends). The reason Saddam failed in his attempted invasion was that the Iranian army, as equiped by the Shah was also powerful with added revolutionary fervor and nationalism. Again contrary to your assumptions, Iran was very united after the revolution and things got organized very fast once the country was faced with an invasion by foreign forces. In any case the size of an army is a variable and if allowed, lunatics with smaller armies can become monsters with huge armies very fast (Germans had been defeated in WW1 and still managed what they did within two decades of that defeat).

As for gassing of the Kurds, I really don't see with what reasoning you can even come close to explaining it, even if only conventional weapons were used, unless you think every ethnic group that wants their rights and wish to get rid of a ruthless murderer deserves, or at least it's 'normal' for them to be gassed or gunned down. The 5000 women, children and the elderly massacred in Hallabja were not; as you put it 'rebels". The Kurds were not the only ones massacred in Iraq, the Shia population has had a good dose of the massacres as well. What happened to the native Americans or to other ethnic minorities throughout history is by no means any justification for what the lunatic did to his own people. This is like saying I'm going to murder someone because others have done it as well and it's a 'normal' human behaviour under certain circumstances.

So, being against the invasion of Iraq by Bush is absolutely no reason for revising history or down playing the acts of a mass murderer. The only point in your post that I might agree with is that Saddam was not similar to Hitler, since at least Hitler did not massacre his own people. Saddam was much worse than Hitler and he should have been gotten rid of a lot earlier!

[TheOriginalF]

You're totally wrong there! Iran and Iraq had signed what was known as the Algiers agreement several years before the war, and there were no border disputes at the time the lunatic decided to invade Iran. In fact he tore up the Algiers agreement on the Iraqi tv the day after he had started his sudden attacks on Iran and published maps that showed large parts of Iran as the ' greater Arabia'; attached to Iraq of course.   Contrary to your assumptions, he had every intention of invading Iran and expanding his ruthless rule and increase his power base (the same is valid for his invasion of Kuwait). The war was not the extension of some on going border dispute that just got out of hand. The revolution in Iran is not a valid reason for the invasion neither and was mainly used by the lunatic himself and those supporting him to justify his attacks and suck money from his Arab and non-Arab backers in his misadventure. Do you seriously believe that a regim change in one country is a valid reason for others to invade that country?

The Iraqi military might be a joke now or before the American invasion ( it had become so as the result of different wars and sanctions, just like Hitler's army at the closing stages of WW2)), but it certainly was no joke at the time and was a powerful army, backed up by money from oil (Iraq, and later in the war by some of his rich friends). The reason Saddam failed in his attempted invasion was that the Iranian army, as equiped by the Shah was also powerful with added revolutionary fervor and nationalism. Again contrary to your assumptions, Iran was very united after the revolution and things got organized very fast once the country was faced with an invasion by foreign forces. In any case the size of an army is a variable and if allowed, lunatics with smaller armies can become monsters with huge armies very fast (Germans had been defeated in WW1 and still managed what they did within two decades of that defeat).

As for gassing of the Kurds, I really don't see with what reasoning you can even come close to explaining it, even if only conventional weapons were used, unless you think every ethnic group that wants their rights and wish to get rid of a ruthless murderer deserves, or at least it's 'normal' for them to be gassed or gunned down. The 5000  women, children and the elderly massacred in Hallabja were not; as you put it 'rebels".  The Kurds were not the only ones massacred in Iraq, the Shia population has had a good dose of the massacres as well. What happened to the native Americans or to other ethnic minorities throughout history is by no means any justification for what the lunatic did to his own people. This is like saying I'm going to murder someone because others have done it as well and it's a 'normal' human behaviour under certain circumstances.

So, being against the invasion of Iraq by Bush is absolutely no reason for revising history or down playing the acts of a mass murderer. The only point in your post that I might agree with is that Saddam was not similar to Hitler, since at least Hitler did not massacre his own people. Saddam was much worse than Hitler and he should have been gotten rid of a lot earlier!

565812[/snapback]

It's easy to just say that I am wrong and dismiss all of the evidence that shows two countries who were at each others throats for better part of 40 years. The Regime change in Iran was only a small piece the problem furthered by border disputes and cultural differences, countries go to war over this kind stuff all the time. What you're saying is that since the Algiers agreement in was signed in 1975 it negates all previous problems stemming from the earlier border disputes, since when does a treaty matter? Every country on Earth has broken them time and time again it hardly sets Hussein apart from every other country, including the US. You accuse me of revising History, but you are just ignoring it all together. I don't understand why you can't see that years of tense relations between two neighboring countries led to war. What's more Iran isn't completely without blame, the war never came as a surprise to them the tension had been mounting for years.

In 1982 Iran counter invaded and took several cities along the border of Iraq, cities occupied by Shais, a group that had been at the center of the dispute over the border. As a matter of fact the Iranians turned down a cease fire agreement with Iraq in late 1982, why would a country that had been unwarrented attacked turn down a cease fire? Perhaps because the on going border dispute was still up in the air and they believed the had a right to the Shai cities they always claimed they owned? It was a nasty war and both sides share the blame. Just because Hussein invaded first doesn't mean the Islamic extremist in Iran wouldn't have invaded Iraq at some point in the near future. They believed that a secular govt like Iraq had was an abomination of their faith and it may have only been a matter of time before they brought their revolution to Iraq and surrounding countries, hardly a misplaced assumption on the part of Iraq. Would it have happened? We'll never know, but it's not a stretch to assume.

As for Hussein just wanting to expand his power base, the evidence just isn't there. I know you don't by into the historical facts that show tensions between Iraq and Iran, but most historians do, the invasion of Iran simply doesn't show signs of somebody randomly invading a neighboring country for the sake of his own power. Where is the evidence to show that he planned to invade Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey? There isn't any because Iraq didn't have any issues with these nations. Unlike Hitler who invaded and in some cases occupied Albania, Czechoslovakia, Belgium, Estonia, France, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Yugoslavia, and Great Britain. All countries Germany had been at peace with since WWI, there aren't any major signs of strained tensions. Hitler simply wanted to expand Germans power base in Europe...Still think Hussein was worse the Hitler?

I'm not saying Hussein is an Angel, but we can't demonize one man for doing something that we ourselves have done. Was is it the right thing to do? No, it never is. Did the fine folks of the Lokota Nation deserve to gunned down by the FBI because they wanted to free themselves from the BIA and US rule? Of course not, should President Ford have been removed from power because the US govt decided to stop a Native uprising?

If you honestly believe that Hussein is worse than Hitler than I guess there is nothing I can say to you about that. Except Hitler did attack and kill his own people, do you think the Jews living in Germany weren't German citizens? He systematically rounded up and murdered 750,000 of his own people, people who weren't even uprising against the nation of Germany...You honestly believe that is a more justifiable action than gassing an uprising minority? Both are despicable, but come on, really.

Edited April 10, 2005 by TheOriginalF

[zephyr]

The Regime change in Iran was only a small piece the problem furthered by border disputes and cultural differences, countries go to war over this kind stuff all the time

Fact 1: Saddam attacked and occupied parts of Iran all of a sudden, with no warnings, and in the absence of any border skirmishes, ignoring the Algerian brokered agreement.

Fact 2: Saddam considered himself the leader of the 'greater Arabia', an eldorado that included Iran as well. His war against Iran was his way of expanding his power base. The inexistant border dispute was not the cause of the war as you are led to believe, but the lunatic's expansionism and the illusions he had about himself as a great arab leader.

Fact 3: He attacked and occupied Kuwait because he also considered that country as belonging to his Iraq. He overthrew the government of Kuwait and established his rule there. By then the man had become completely senile as well as a tyrant that he already had been for many years before.

Fact 4: The Shia in Iraq are Iraqis and not Iranians as you're implying in your post. The "shias occupying Iraqi cities" sounds totally absurd and is the same as saying the Americans are occupying New York! 60% of the Iraqi population are shia; Iraq is their home!

Fact 5: You baselessly speculate that Iran would have invaded Iraq anyway therefore it was ok for Saddam to invade Iran (what a reasoning ). Is that what you call history based on facts? Even funnier, you're asking me to provide evidence that the lunatic had no intentions of invading any other country while ignoring his bloody record of invading two of his neighbours. You even try to justify such acts with far fetched arguments while it's much easier to just admit the fact that the man was a dangerous warmonger and a mass murderer.

Fact 6: Iran never claimed any part of Iraq; or any other country for that matter as 'her own'; contrary to one of your many assumptions. Iran has a natural cultural influence in the region and despite your wrong assumption of cultural differences between Iran and Iraq, the Iraqi Kurds and the Shia feel quite close to their counterparts across the border, it was Saddam that was spreading hatred and exploiting it to his own benefits. You make it sound like there is a deep hatred between the two people which is of course completely wrong.

As for why Iran did not accept a cease fire offer in 1982, this was because parts of Iran were still under Iraqi occupation at the time and the lunatic was trying to gain what he couldn't get through a sudden invasion by involving his many friends to pressure Iran into accepting a cease fire under occupation and thereby saving himself from a humiliating defeat. He never accepted to pull back his troops as a pre condition for cease fire talks which shows his expansionist intentions very well. Besides; would you have accepted the word of a lunatic that had torn up a previous accord on the tv a couple of years before? In fact his invasion of Iran helped the hard liners gather support in Iran and one of the main reasons the revolution took the course that it did was the war and the extreme foreign threat looming over Iran. Things could have been a lot different (certainly more moderate) in Iran if the lunatic had not decided to attack this country. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Iran did not expect a sudden attack ( as you so easily assume the contrary), and I agree that Iran is not completely blameless for the continuation of the war beyond 1983 (for internal reasons mentioned above), but Saddam is the only one responsible for the start of it.

So dear friend, I do not ignore history, neither do I revise it in order to match it with my own opinion of some current events. Best is to try and learn from it so as to avoid disasters in the future. You're right though about Hitler and the gassing of the German jews, he did it too, just like the lunatic in Baghdad did it to his own people. Therefore we can conclude that Saddam and Hitler were in essence the same monster that appeared at two different locations at two different times; the minor differnces (size of the armies, etc...) are just technical blabla

[I am me]

Iraq was never any of our business and should not be any of our business now. They were no threat to us. They had no weapons of mass destruction, and we knew it. The government and media lied to us all to get us to fall in line and support their agenda what ever it was. Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians died along with thousands of US soldiers. Big government is the true evil here.

[TheOriginalF]

"Fact 1: Saddam attacked and occupied parts of Iran all of a sudden, with no warnings, and in the absence of any border skirmishes, ignoring the Algerian brokered agreement."

If the invasion of Iran came as a surprise to the Iranians then they weren't doing a very good job of looking after themselves. If a country has a long standing dispute with another it's customary to be mindful of the actions of that country. The Algerian agreement was still in dispute at the time and both countries thought the border was misaligned and both found it an unfair agreement. Considering that it was signed while both countries were under different rule it further negates the validity of the treaty. The new border was dawn down the middle of Shatt al Arab instead of along the eastern Iranian border as it was in 1937. The new govt of each country disagreed with this new border and the disputes simply continued as they had before. Simply ignoring decades of tensions over the signing of one treaty is a very myopic view of the overall situation. Besides wasn't it us here in the State who coinded the term "unsigning a treaty".

"Fact 2: Saddam considered himself the leader of the 'greater Arabia', an eldorado that included Iran as well. His war against Iran was his way of expanding his power base. The inexistant border dispute was not the cause of the war as you are led to believe, but the lunatic's expansionism and the illusions he had about himself as a great arab leader."

You continue to eschew long standing tensions between the two nations as a basis for going to war. I agree that Hussein wanted more power (as most world leaders do) but I still don't see evidence of this simply being a war for power. That may have played a part in the invasion but it doesn't prove that Hussein was simply invading Iran for the needs of his own ego.

"Fact 3: He attacked and occupied Kuwait because he also considered that country as belonging to his Iraq. He overthrew the government of Kuwait and established his rule there. By then the man had become completely senile as well as a tyrant that he already had been for many years before."

Yes he did attack and occupy Kuwait...never disagreed with you on that.

"Fact 4: The Shia in Iraq are Iraqis and not Iranians as you're implying in your post. The "shias occupying Iraqi cities" sounds totally absurd and is the same as saying the Americans are occupying New York! 60% of the Iraqi population are shia; Iraq is their home!"

"The Shia community of Iraq has as many internal contradictions and conflict as it sees in the world beyond. Forming more than 60 percent of Iraq's estimated 25 million population, Shiites have not controlled their destiny, much less their country since Iraq's independence in 1922. Like the entire nation, Shiites have had virtually no opportunity to express their political will."

National Review

Sure Iraq is their home but that doesn't mean they want to be there, they are an oppressed group and a lot of the cites on Iraq' western border didn't want to belong to Iraq. When did I say the Shai's were occupying Iraqi cities? The fact is that they are an oppressed ethnic group and support from Iran lead to cultural tensions between the two countries.

"Fact 5: You baselessly speculate that Iran would have invaded Iraq anyway therefore it was ok for Saddam to invade Iran (what a reasoning ). Is that what you call history based on facts? Even funnier, you're asking me to provide evidence that the lunatic had no intentions of invading any other country while ignoring his bloody record of invading two of his neighbors. You even try to justify such acts with far fetched arguments while it's much easier to just admit the fact that the man was a dangerous warmonger and a mass murderer."

How is assuming that a religious revolution over spilling into neighboring countries a baseless speculation? If you are a leader of a nation and a revolution takes place in a neighboring country you wouldn't be concerned about that revolution coming to your country? It's hardly an unfounded historical assumption, look at communism in Asia and Europe, after the Russian revolution communism spread like wildfire throughout most of the Eastern World. How is it baseless speculation that an Islamic revolution in Iran would continue to grow and swallow up other Middle Eastern nations?

What I'm asking for is evidence that Hussein was a dictator who (as you put) was worse than Hitler. Hitler invaded every one of his neighboring countries where is the evidence to show that Hussein was doing something on a larger scale than that?

"Fact 6: Iran never claimed any part of Iraq; or any other country for that matter as 'her own'; contrary to one of your many assumptions. Iran has a natural cultural influence in the region and despite your wrong assumption of cultural differences between Iran and Iraq, the Iraqi Kurds and the Shia feel quite close to their counterparts across the border, it was Saddam that was spreading hatred and exploiting it to his own benefits. You make it sound like there is a deep hatred between the two people which is of course completely wrong"

I'm not even sure what you're saying here, yes the Kurds and Shia are close to their counterparts across the border, what's your point? If anything it only further illustrates my point, Iran sympathized with and supported these groups, when ever a neighboring country supports a minority uprising within your own borders it leads to tension. The only deep hatred I was refereing to was the hatred between the country of Iran and the the country of Iraq.

I agree with your assessment of the cease fire, but your still putting a biased spin against Hussein. My whole point is that we can't demonize one man for acting the same as others, why are we holding Hussein to a higher standard than we hold other countries with tyrannical leaders. Why aren't we invading and displacing the govt of Mexico for mistreating and killing Zapitista rebels in Chiapas? Why aren't we attacking and overthrowing Isreal for breaking treaties with the people of Palestine and slaughtering people simply because they are trying to rebel against the govt of Isreal. If we hold Hussein to these standard why not every other country who part takes in similar or worse actions against there own people?

As for Hitler you still haven't shown me evidence that he and Hussein were the same. Based on nothing more than Hitlers capabilities and massive army we can conclude he was worse than Hussein. We still haven't tackled how rounding up a peaceful minority and killing them is no different than attacking and killing a group that is rebelling against your country. You really see no difference between the two?

[I am me]

We aided Iraq's attack on Iran. We gave Iraq the OK when Saddam wanted to invade Kuwait. We helped to install an Iranian leader, one who oppressed his people. We invaded Iraq on weak reports from the INC and then filmed them tearing down Saddam's statue with our help. We do as we please in the middle east. Our actions have brought upon more and more terrorists who hate the USA.

[TheOriginalF]

We aided Iraq's attack on Iran.  We gave Iraq the OK when Saddam wanted to invade Kuwait.  We helped to install an Iranian leader, one who oppressed his people.  We invaded Iraq on weak reports from the INC and then filmed them tearing down Saddam's statue with our help.  We do as we please in the middle east.  Our actions have brought upon more and more terrorists who hate the USA.

568664[/snapback]

Yes we've (The US and Europe) have monkeyed with the Middle East for decades, and yet we wonder why some people in the Middle East don't like us. It must be because they "Hate Freedom" I find it quite funny how Nationalism still blinds some to world events in this day and age.

It's always important to remember that nobody is inherently good or evil. Really could Bush sound more juvenile when he compares us to cowboys and calls the war on terror a "battle between good and evil".

[zephyr]

Simply ignoring decades of tensions over the signing of one treaty is a very myopic view of the overall situation

How many times do I have to tell you that there were no border disputes for years before the lunatic attacked and invaded Iran. Even if Shatt-al-arab was an issue (which was no longer the case at the time of the invasion and both sides had settled for the deepest part of the river as their border line), was that a reason for a full scale invasion from the northern parts of the border all the way to the south( over a thousand Kilometers)? Why did the lunatic occupied Iranian towns such as Qasre-shirin which is 800 Kilometers away from Shatt-al-arab? Secondly, if there were 40 years of dispute over a small (relative to the rest of the shared border) waterway as you claim, why did no other Iraqi leader before the lunatic invade Iran? The myopic view of the overall situation is yours since you try at all costs to ignore the simple fact that the man was a dangerous warmonger and find justification for a tyrant's actions; a dangerous attitude which if shared by enough people, will lead to more bloody wars!

I agree that Hussein wanted more power (as most world leaders do) but I still don't see evidence of this simply being a war for power. That may have played a part in the invasion but it doesn't prove that Hussein was simply invading Iran for the needs of his own ego.

Ah, so you finally agree that the lunatic wanted more power, boy it took sometime for you to admit that. What kind of evidence do you look for if you don't accept the invasion of two countries within a few years as evidence? For me that's more than ample evidence, especially that as I mentioned above, no other Iraqi leader came even close to thinking about invading Iran. the lunatic's ego was much bigger than he himself could handle and that's what finally led to his much celebrated down fall, doesn't that happen to them all?

Shiites have had virtually no opportunity to express their political will."

And thanks to the disappearance of the lunatic, they have their chance now to express their political view and at least avoid being massacred like they were when the monster was still ruling their country.

Sure Iraq is their home but that doesn't mean they want to be there, they are an oppressed group and a lot of the cites on Iraq' western border didn't want to belong to Iraq. When did I say the Shai's were occupying Iraqi cities? The fact is that they are an oppressed ethnic group and support from Iran lead to cultural tensions between the two countries.

Where do you think they want to be? I suggest you read your own posts to see what you were implying in them regarding the Iraqi Shiits. Since they were being systematically massacred by Saddam, some of them came to Iran as refugees, just like some Iraqi Kurds did. Any humanatarian support for them coming from Iran was the direct result of the lunatic massacring his own citizens. There were no 'cultural tensions' between the two countries as you put it, and even if we admit this false premis as the absolute truth, where is the justification for a full-scale invasion in that?

How is assuming that a religious revolution over spilling into neighboring countries a baseless speculation?

That's not what you were assuming. You were assuming that Iran would have militarily invaded Iraq anyway. There is a big difference between the cultural influences of a revolution on other people and full military invasions. The rest of your paragraph is no longer valid since your original assumptions were incorrect. Some simple examples: there is a communist party in France, did the Soviet Union invade France and installed some Russians there or are they French communist citizens that adopted that idealogy themselves? Did France invade the Soviet Union because there was a communist movement in their country? Should the UK have gassed the Irish Americans because of the problems in N.Ireland? Maybe Spain should bomb the hell out of southern France because of the Basques there.

What I'm asking for is evidence that Hussein was a dictator who (as you put) was worse than Hitler. Hitler invaded every one of his neighboring countries where is the evidence to show that Hussein was doing something on a larger scale than that?

Saddam invaded two of his neighbors and unfortunately for him; just like unfortunately for Hitler, he wasn't allowed to go any further by a bigger power than himself, tough luck! As I said before, the best evidence is the man's record, and despite all your tries to make his full invasion of Iran look 'normal', his invasion and occupation of Kuwait sticks out like a sore thumb, and even you had no choice but to admit that.

I'm not even sure what you're saying here, yes the Kurds and Shia are close to their counterparts across the border, what's your point?

This was in reply to your claims of hatred and cultural differences between the Iranians and the Iraqi; a supposition on your part that's simply not true. I repeat, the Kurds and the Shiits in Iraq were fed up with being massacred by Saddam and his thugs and they naturaly looked to Iran as a refuge. Iran did not need to provoke them into an uprising against Saddam, the lunatic was doing a fantastic job of that himself.

I agree with your assessment of the cease fire, but your still putting a biased spin against Hussein. My whole point is that we can't demonize one man for acting the same as others, why are we holding Hussein to a higher standard than we hold other countries with tyrannical leaders

Oh poor Saddam! Such a lovely creature! My bad for inventing all this and demonizing an angel just because I'm biased against him! Is that what you're saying? The world has seen some tyrants for sure, and whoever has done the crimes that Hitler and Saddam have is also a monstrous tyrant. Just because others might have done similar crimes is by no means any justification for Saddam's crimes. Anyway tyrants at the level of Hitler and Saddam have been few and far in between. In the 20th century I can think of Pol Pot that could be high up there, next to his buddies Hitler and Saddam. If you know of any other I'll be glad to learn

We still haven't tackled how rounding up a peaceful minority and killing them is no different than attacking and killing a group that is rebelling against your country. You really see no difference between the two?

You're insisting on your false beliefs that Iraq does not somehow belong to the Kurds and the Shiit as well and pretending that they were rebelling against Iraq on Iran's behalf which is absolutely not true. Saddam was rounding up and gassing and massacring innocent Iraqis and they were struggling for their own survival in their own country. NO, I really don't see differences of any significance between Saddam and Hitler and as mentioned before, size of the armies, how many people they managed to massacre, or how many countries they succeeded in invading and occupying are variables and nothing more than circumstantial, technical differnces. Surely if the Americans had not waited so long before intervening in WW2, Hitler would not have been able to invade the number of countries that he did. The two were in essence the same barberic, blood sucking monster that had to be stopped at all costs, the earlier the better.

edit: It's Pol Pot, and not Paul Pot known for his human skull collection

Edited April 13, 2005 by zephyr

[I am me]

Hitler really was no threat to the USA. Saddam was no threat to the USA. We should have never intervened in either skirmish. The USA aided Saddam in the war against Iran. The CIA created a coup and changed the ruler in Iran.

Our government meddles in all of these countries problems for its own benefit for the short term and never looks at the long term. This constantly leaves more and more problems behind and allows government to expand even more.

[baastetnoir]

The world is better without Saddam, and it would be even better without many other people like him. As to the Pope...well ... i cant forget that the Vatican stood silent while Hitler slaughtered millions of Jews, and it took them YEARS to issue an apology, wich really wont repair any damage donne... The Pope is nothing more than a Vatican Puppet... The Vatican and Opus Dei decide what causes are convenient to speak against and waht not...Once more than half the world specially Europe is against the USA the Vatican decided to speak against it... If everyone decided to be PRO US the Vatican wouldnt say a word...

I don't remember seeing the Vatican issuing any statement about Clinton's slaughter in Servia............even tho it was all a show to take the publics attention away from his "accidents" with Ms Lewinsky.

The Vatican is a People pleasing "Society/Club", and the Pope is the Spokesperson...nothing else.