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.

[The Skipper 20,609]

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.

I'm not advocating that I'd rather prefer Saddam's Iraq, not at all. I despise a lot of the things he's done to the Iraqis. Do I honestly believe that when comparing the situation then with the situation now that the Iraqis weren't as worse off as they are now? Yes, I do. That doesn't mean I'm saying I'd prefer Iraqi under Saddam compared to the current situation. I'm merely comparing them and giving my opinion on which one is worse - ideally we'd obviously avoid both situations though. I don't like what Saddam did whatsoever but what's going on right now with ISIS is even worse IMO and I'm just hoping it doesn't escalate.

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?

Different topic entirely, but I can see the parallels you're trying to bring out; however I'd say yes, it was necessary because it would've definitely crept up again and again. A lot of people suffered, but IMO it's good to see that their suffering didn't go in vain. Black enfranchisement was a massive thing back then, and if it was allowed to go on it would've even created an uglier scene IMO.

[twobanger 13]

A few months before September 11th while I was still studying at the states, someone knocked on my door. When I opened there were two Muslims at the door

In hindsight, was there a clue that it was coming?

[twobanger 13]

:

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

Because one is actually better and the other is actually worse. The similarities you are trying to draw between the two do not overwrite the glaring differences.

It was a different time.

The Japanese made IS look like saints. They believed anyone that was not Japanese was a subhuman savage. With this belief they killed, raped and tortured without mercy.

China suffered imaginable horror. Look up "The Rape of Nanking".

Pregnant women were not spared. In several instances, they were raped, then had their bellies slit open and the fetuses torn out. Sometimes, after storming into a house and encountering a whole family, the Japanese forced Chinese men to rape their own daughters, sons to rape their mothers, and brothers their sisters, while the rest of the family was made to watch.

Throughout the city of Nanking, random acts of murder occurred as soldiers frequently fired their rifles into panicked crowds of civilians, killing indiscriminately. Other soldiers killed shopkeepers, looted their stores, then set the buildings on fire after locking people of all ages inside. They took pleasure in the extraordinary suffering that ensued as the people desperately tried to escape the flames by climbing onto rooftops or leaping down onto the street.

Do a bit of research on Unit 731 and you'll understand what a war crime truly is.

It's estimated 300,000 were killed in the blasts and aftereffects of radiation. Do you know what estimates were from a land invasion? 5,000,000 dead Japanese is the conservative estimate and 1,700,000 American casualties (400,000 dead). To this day when an American soldier is injured or killed in combat, the Purple Heart he/she is awarded comes from stock made for the invasion of Japan. So after conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan we still haven't had the numbers hurt or killed that an invasion of Japan would have incurred. 300,000 against 5,400,000 or 10,800,000 there's no rational argument the correct call was not made. (Some say Japan was looking for a conditional surrender already, to that I say the only surrender acceptable was unconditional.)

You mentioned that Lebanese soldiers fought of terrorists without hurting civilians. That's wonderful (our police are just as likely to kill us to save themselves...), but the difference is that your soldiers were protecting your fellow citizens. I don't think its reasonable to think the Israelis would take the same efforts protect Palestinian lives.

[Fulham Broadway 17,334]

So your whole point is because western nation intervene everything went to hell?

Then how come it didn't happen in Nicaragua when USA was there?

How come it didn't happen in Dominican Republic when USA was there?

They did not become terrorist organization like all these countries in the middle east!

And dismantle Israel, you have no idea what your asking.

You are joking right ?.

Ok lets ignore the 70 countries that the US has intervened in since 1945 in order to get the govt they want, resulting in over 40 million deaths, and just look at the two you mentioned.

Nicaragua. The US under Reagan in the 80s trained right wing Contras, death squads in Honduras with the sole aim of overthrowing the elected Sandanistas in Nicaragua. (The money for this was funded by the illegal sales of arms to Iran, a scandal which almost toppled Reagan). 30 000 people were murdered by Washington sponsored death squads in Nicaragua. many dragged from their beds and tortured for days before being killed. This is real terrorism. The US has invaded the Dominican Republic four times because they wanted a certain tyoe of government, not one the people elected.

For the long term peace of the middle East including Israelis the state should be dismantled imo. 90% of 'Israelis' are from Eastern Europe, they speak Hebrew and talk quote land given to them by god which is ridiculous. The cold war now has ended , the Third reich has gone, and it is safe for them to return to their countries instead of being a US sattelite army encampment with shopping malls and swimming pools.

[Fulham Broadway 17,334]

This chels fan sums up Gaza slaughter