Politics & Stuff

[The Skipper 20,609]

But never being run by a dictatorship who runs wild like a drug cartel is the best option.

And I never said such. Feel like I'm repeating myself a lot here, but me saying that the situation under Saddam was better doesn't mean I'm saying that Iraq should go back to being a dictatorship. I'm merely comparing two different times and stating which era wasn't the worst in Iraq.

Of course dictatorship is never the answer, Iraq must strive for democracy. Whether that's achievable or not is another discussion.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Well if your Atheist then I guess you won't believe in that.

But if you call yourself a Christian, Muslim or such then something wrong with that view.

To be fair I don't know much about Muslim but I know in Christianity such thing does not makes sense. Evil is evil.

No matter how big or how small.

Nope, proud of atheist since I was a teen

Can't answer about evil in Islam, I'm by no means an expert

[Mohammed Seif 1,451]

Well if your Atheist then I guess you won't believe in that.

But if you call yourself a Christian, Muslim or such then something wrong with what you believe then.

As a Muslim, I actually share this view. There are relativity in things. There are many factors affecting a problem. You try to minimize the damages as much as possible and capitalize on the positives as much as you can. Life is not rigid. It is not a matter of black and white.

[Fernando 6,585]

And I never said such. Feel like I'm repeating myself a lot here, but me saying that the situation under Saddam was better doesn't mean I'm saying that Iraq should go back to being a dictatorship. I'm merely comparing two different times and stating which era wasn't the worst in Iraq.

Of course dictatorship is never the answer, Iraq must strive for democracy. Whether that's achievable or not is another discussion.

Yes I know, but I saw the same view in Colombia.

The situation was miles better with Escobar at the helm.

After he died many little drug cartels taken over led to many blood shed.

It was very bad after he died, and took years to fix that problem.

It's sad what it's happening in Iraq, but Iraqis as well other countries must help because the country does not have the infrastructure to sustain a democracy, or even socialism if that's your cup of tea.

There's a lot of little organization trying to take power after Saddam.

As a Muslim, I actually share this view. There are relativity in things. There are many factors affecting a problem. You try to minimize the damages as much as possible and capitalize on the positives as much as you can. Life is not rigid. It is not a matter of black and white.

Yeah that's why I edited my statement.

As I don't know much about Muslim but I know in Christianity such thing does not makes sense. Evil is evil.

No matter how big or how small.

[The only place to be 11,313]

Over 200000 people killed in hours. Regardless of the circumstances, that is a war crime.

No it isn't though. A war crime is a very specific label. Now you may think it's a war crime, but that doesn't mean it is and saying 'regardless of the circumstances' is a reductive way of eliminating context from something that is entirely dependent on it.

[The Skipper 20,609]

It's sad what it's happening in Iraq, but Iraqis as well other countries must help because the country does not have the infrastructure to sustain a democracy, or even socialism if that's your cup of tea. There's a lot of little organization trying to take power after Saddam.

And this is why people are bringing USA into it, because they really should've ensured that after invading Iraq and getting rid of Saddam that a better foundation for democracy was laid down. They failed hard in that aspect, and this is just the beginning of the consequences of that failure.

[The only place to be 11,313]

I agree that democracy should be the aim to work towards but then again, it's unfair to label a whole country as brutes.

I would never condone Saddam's actions at all, but what I do agree with is that the situation under Saddam is probably better than the situation right now, even if it is the lesser of two evils.

So you think that disenfranchisement of huge swathes of the populace, a lack of education and people being imprisoned and tortured

is better than the situation right now where people actually have OPPORTUNITY in their life?

The state was the mechanism being used to keep people down, and that is never preferable to anything.

He never said that he thought it was acceptable - what he was basically trying to get at is that the situation under Saddam is better than the situation right now, which is true IMO.

That's a very simplistic way to look at things.

I'm sure people were saying the same during the Selma riots but do you think black enfranchisement was worth the trouble?

[Fernando 6,585]

And this is why people are bringing USA into it, because they really should've ensured that after invading Iraq and getting rid of Saddam that a better foundation for democracy was laid down. They failed hard in that aspect, and this is just the beginning of the consequences of that failure.

No they actually left a militia there.

If I remember correctly this whole ISIS started about two months ago, and the Iraqi had the militia fighting.

Eventually they was overwhelm.

USA is a last resort effort. And it seem like it has been since the Iraqi militia could not sustain it.

I don't think USA needs to send troops in. They need to do what they are doing. Bombs certain targets, provide airlift support and send some key specialize individual to help counter terrorist insurgency.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

No it isn't though. A war crime is a very specific label. Now you may think it's a war crime, but that doesn't mean it is and saying 'regardless of the circumstances' is a reductive way of eliminating context from something that is entirely dependent on it.

Fair enough, I was exaggerating. But killing over 200000 people, mostly civilians.......there needs to be some VERY powerful circumstances for that not to be a war crime..

[Fernando 6,585]

Fair enough, I was exaggerating. But killing over 200000 people, mostly civilians.......there needs to be some VERY powerful circumstances for that not to be a war crime..

Well I guess because it was the first time used.

The outcome was so bad that Japan surrender and USA was so emotional torn because what they done that they forever helped Japan rebuild and be partners.

And since then USA has never used such method ever again to end war.

It would be irresponsible from USA to use such extreme again.

They will avoid to ever use it again unless a nation strikes them first with a Nuclear weapon.

[CHOULO19 24,332]

Well I guess because it was the first time used.

The outcome was so bad that Japan surrender and USA was so emotional torn because what they done that they forever helped Japan rebuild and be partners.

And since then USA has never used such method ever again to end war.

It would be irresponsible from USA to use such extreme again.

They will avoid to ever use it again unless a nation strikes them first with a Nuclear weapon.

I hope so. I wish that awful, awful weapon is never used again and is erased and forgotten from human history.

[MrExcalibur100 7,124]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/11018298/Islamic-State-pulls-down-church-crosses-in-northern-Iraq-as-200000-flee.html

[Fernando 6,585]

Isis beheading Christian children.

http://allenbwest.com/2014/08/isis-beheading-children-obama-drops-two-bombs/

This is crazy, it's like what the Bible speak about having Christian being beheaded, but never thought it would also be children.

[Alee. 182]

Fucking ISIS. So sick of militant groups ruining the religion for everyone. Bomb them to hell like we're doing in Pakistan.

[The Skipper 20,609]

No they actually left a militia there.

If I remember correctly this whole ISIS started about two months ago, and the Iraqi had the militia fighting.

Eventually they was overwhelm.

USA is a last resort effort. And it seem like it has been since the Iraqi militia could not sustain it.

I don't think USA needs to send troops in. They need to do what they are doing. Bombs certain targets, provide airlift support and send some key specialize individual to help counter terrorist insurgency.

For me it's not about leaving militia there tbh, they left plenty of militia there obviously, I'm talking about the political outlook of Iraq. USA tried to introduce democracy into the Iraqi political system but they obviously failed in that respect. They didn't usher it in correctly.

But the way they're reacting to the situation right now, sending in tactical bombs, is probably the best way to deal with it yes, I agree with that.