Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

But you see, we DO have many Saddam-lovers and West-haters on here. Just spend some time in this forum for a year and you can see it plain as day. Funny how people can admire Saddam Hussein, yet they find George Bush to be the worst criminal out there. Now how's that kind of thinking for "unbiased"?

kanelli wrote:But you see, we DO have many Saddam-lovers and West-haters on here. Just spend some time in this forum for a year and you can see it plain as day. Funny how people can admire Saddam Hussein, yet they find George Bush to be the worst criminal out there. Now how's that kind of thinking for "unbiased"?

so what do you call all the people who love the west and love bush but hate us?


wait, ive never heard you call anyone a bush-lover before, or an arab hater....

[quote="bushra21"][/quote]

so what do you call all the people who love the west and love bush but hate us?

Lets start with "NORMAL"

Well, I am yet to hear anyone on here praise Bush for his actions. Can you find me a thread where people are glorifying George Bush? As to the Arab-haters, yes, they are here - but I consider them trolls and don't comment on them. We all know who they are with their comments and avatars. All of us have learned to ignore them because they only post once in a blue moon in the hot political and religious threads. Why give them the attention they crave?

The problem is, if someone even says anything that tries to show some balance other than "George Bush, Israel and the West are to blame for all our problems." he/she is thought of as an Arab and Muslim-hater, or considered ignorant.

nostradamus wrote:

bushra21 wrote:

so what do you call all the people who love the west and love bush but hate us?

Lets start with "NORMAL"

Bushra, here is a prime example of such a troll.

Most people are hesitant to participate in this kind of debate even if they have much to say, simply because most of the debates if you've noticed are going off topic and some posts are getting too personal. Some couldn't distinguish which topic be treated in jest, and which are not.

Over all, it is good for pastime as well.

bushra21 wrote:

kanelli wrote:Actually, I started out posting in a way that gives my opinion without personally insulting anyone. However, since so many of you are Saddam-lovers and West-haters and didn't like my opinion, I was subjected to name calling and insults. It went downhill from there.

So, I see now that if someone posts something you pretty much agree with then they are considered fair, unbiased and respectful. If someone posts something you don't agree with, they deserve any kind of disrespect they get. Nice

no kanelli thats not it. i even said that i dont agree with rvp at times, but the way he posts his opinions is not offensive. he doesnt make you feel like your either with him or against him....

and that is not how you post.

And what was so offensive about my initial posts in the Saddam thread? Since it has been deleted I cannot prove it with quotations. I will tell you that I posted a simple opinion that did not slam anyone else. It is other people who felt "against" me and posted insulting and rude things to me. I admit that I let my emotions get in the way after my initial posts and after people started insulting me personally. I am human afterall...

I guess that people want to teach us Westerners that we shouldn't give an opinion here unless it is pro-Arab, pro-Muslim, anti-Bush/Blair, and anti-West. The majority of threads posted in the politics section certainly reflect this, from the topics started in the forum, or the way people get treated if they try to debate.

I'm a fool to keep discussing these issues here. I belong to another online community where we discuss all kinds of political topics and the discussions rarely degenerate like they do here. And no, people most certainly do not share the same opinions - it is that they focus on debating the issues, not insulting each other personally.

kanelli wrote:But you see, we DO have many Saddam-lovers and West-haters on here. Just spend some time in this forum for a year and you can see it plain as day. Funny how people can admire Saddam Hussein, yet they find George Bush to be the worst criminal out there. Now how's that kind of thinking for "unbiased"?

I have one question for you, why would you assume that if people dont agree with your views, then they have to be WEST-HATERS or SADDAM-LOVERS, why do you like to label people!!!!....Have you ever thought that they might actually like westerners as human beings, but they just hate the WESTERN Government policies and we r entitled to our opinions . Dont take these issues so personally, cuz dear we might not agree on many things, but it doesnt mean we hate westerners!!!!

uae75 wrote:

kanelli wrote:But you see, we DO have many Saddam-lovers and West-haters on here. Just spend some time in this forum for a year and you can see it plain as day. Funny how people can admire Saddam Hussein, yet they find George Bush to be the worst criminal out there. Now how's that kind of thinking for "unbiased"?

I have one question for you, why would you assume that if people dont agree with your views, then they have to be WEST-HATERS or SADDAM-LOVERS, why do you like to label people!!!!....Have you ever thought that they might actually like westerners as human beings, but they just hate the WESTERN Government policies and we r entitled to our opinions . Dont take these issues so personally, cuz dear we might not agree on many things, but it doesnt mean we hate westerners!!!!

no dont say that. we are arab terrorists, of course we hate the westerners....



for stupid people -- its called sarcasim

rvp_legend wrote:15 years ago a group of men in Beijing, China confronted a Tank, on Live TV waving banners demanding democracy. They were shot to pieces and a Chinese campaign went underway to kill off these movements in China and they almost wiped all the people involved, out.

I still havent seen the US invade China yet...to help the Chinese who obviously want democracy. Have you?

If they cannot make their allies in Saudi, UAE etc adopt it....how can they enforce it on another?

So the shout for democracy doesnt wash.

You missed the point. I did not shout for democracy. But in this situation I feel that it is the only alternative... apart from UAE75s idea of marshal law.
If you can think of a better idea, then please share it, instead of continually justifying why America should not have invaded Iraq. That doesn't solve anything.

rvp_legend wrote:Regarding things being better than the unfair dictator.... well Three years ago, 12 year old Abdullah could sell his fruits in the market without the risk of being blown to bits. Crime is at an all time high. Kidnapping is a sport. Without sounding like a fan of saddam, None of this existed before the invasion. So its another failure. Iraq is in same situation as Afghanistan.

It was always going to get worse before it got better. And it isn't going to get any better unless they can break the cycle of violence.

rvp_legend wrote:And how do people stop hating American foreign policy? two countries invaded in a row... no WMD's in sight... Oil looted, Abu Ghraib scandal, rape of Iraqi Children, and a continuing occupation with unaccountable mercenaries.

You stop teaching your children to hate Americans/Sunnis/Shiites or whoever. When they are old enough to find out themselves they are usually smart enough to know that violence is not the answer.
This is what the Republic of Ireland started doing a generation ago and the IRA is now struggling for members. In other worlds the extremists will eventually die out.

rvp_legend wrote:How do you forgive a nation who is already using the same rhetoric to repeat the same actions with Syria and Iran? ...where do you draw the line?

Re Iran: Telling the world that you are going to destroy Israel is not a good move. Best you keep that to yourself.

It is extremly difficult, but you need to draw the line somewhere. Right now Iran/Iraq/Lebanon and Palestine have the opportunity to take the moral higher ground.
American has screwed up.
Punishing them by violence will NOT work... and justifying it is just as bad.

The difference guys is that I am only calling those people in the thread Saddam-lovers because they are defending him as a hero and someone who could save the Middle East - it is written in black and white! And West-haters are those people who are always posting about how bad the West is and how rotten the culture and civilisation are - all that is also in black and white all over this forum. If the shoe fits, they should wear it.

You are the ones jumping to the conclusion that we are all Arab-haters and Muslim-haters if we speak up against the actions of the leaders of some Middle East countries and try to show their part in the mess, or if we criticise Hezbollah etc. Then if we talk about women covering themselves we are considered Muslim-haters, because if we don't agree that women need to cover it makes us highly biased people who have no respect for Islam. That's the way the thinking goes around here.

Bushra, nice try with the terrorism comment. No one besides the trolls have said anything about Arabs or Muslims being terrorists. It is really disappointing you can say such things. When have I ever treated any of my Arab and Muslim friends from this forum (or outside this forum) like terrorists?

kanelli wrote:The difference guys is that I am only calling those people in the thread Saddam-lovers because they are defending him as a hero and someone who could save the Middle East - it is written in black and white! And West-haters are those people who are always posting about how bad the West is and how rotten the culture and civilisation are - all that is also in black and white all over this forum. If the shoe fits, they should wear it.

You are the ones jumping to the conclusion that we are all Arab-haters and Muslim-haters if we speak up against the actions of the leaders of some Middle East countries and try to show their part in the mess, or if we criticise Hezbollah etc. Then if we talk about women covering themselves we are considered Muslim-haters, because if we don't agree that women need to cover it makes us highly biased people who have no respect for Islam. That's the way the thinking goes around here.

Bushra, nice try with the terrorism comment. No one besides the trolls have said anything about Arabs or Muslims being terrorists. It is really disappointing you can say such things. When have I ever treated any of my Arab and Muslim friends from this forum (or outside this forum) like terrorists?

Yes, that part was not about you. I know you dont have a problem with that, sorry if you took offence.

just because you may not have a problem with the middle east or the people there doesn't mean no one else does. The same can be said for me; sure, I may not like the U.S govt, most of the people there --- but I still have friends who are from there. The point is Kanelli, you can say whatever you want -- but once you start labelling people thats when all the problems happen. At least, in my opinion.

But I only labelled the people in the thread who blatantly posted pro-Saddam and anti-West comments. So was I really off the mark?

kanelli wrote:But I only labelled the people in the thread who blatantly posted pro-Saddam and anti-West comments. So was I really off the mark?

Still Kanelli, you're older than I am so you should know more than me -- right?

Or at least, thats what everyone expects.

What has that got to do with the sentence quoted?

meaning you should know better

Should know what better?

kanelli wrote:Should know what better?

are you serious?!?

Let me guess, I should know better than to try to discuss anything about the Middle East or Islam on this forum. That I would agree with.

I like how you pull the age card out when it suits you Bushra

kanelli wrote:Let me guess, I should know better than to try to discuss anything about the Middle East or Islam on this forum. That I would agree with.

I like how you pull the age card out when it suits you Bushra

lol, no you are the one who said that used my age to say that i wouldn't know how the iraqi's felt -- so why cant i use your age to show you that you should know better than to label people and not expect any repercussions

kanelli wrote:You are the ones jumping to the conclusion that we are all Arab-haters and Muslim-haters if we speak up against the actions of the leaders of some Middle East countries

Correct me if I am wrong, but in most of your posts, you love to label people, either saddam-lovers or west-haters or arab-haters or whatever!!! why the obsession with the labeling of people!!! lol

kanelli wrote:But I only labelled the people in the thread who blatantly posted pro-Saddam and anti-West comments. So was I really off the mark?

I will answer this question....YES you were off the mark! Let me give examples:

I might disagree with lots of the western policies, does it make me a West-Hater? NO

I might comment about Saddam, and how he stood for himself during this Trial, but does it make me Pro-Saddam? NO

An american might agree with some of Bush policies, does it mean he is Pro-Bush, most probably not, they might disagree with him on many other issues.

The point I am trying to convey here, we shouldn't imitate Bush's way of Foreign policy "If you are not with us, then you are against us"...and labeling people is usually the way of the weak to win arguments.

Anyhow, is it me, or didn't this thread take more of its share, and its time we close it, cuz its pointless, and will go on and on and on

benwj wrote:You missed the point. I did not shout for democracy. But in this situation I feel that it is the only alternative... apart from UAE75s idea of marshal law.
If you can think of a better idea, then please share it, instead of continually justifying why America should not have invaded Iraq. That doesn't solve anything.

Actually i have not missed the point, as UAE75 pointed, you clearly used democracy as a reason as to why they went to Iraq. Perhaps if you meant and highlighted that it was the only alternative, this debate would have been different And i agree with UAE75(i think it was-forgive me if im wrong), to run Iraq you need a strongman within. But not a strongman appointed.
And i can think of a better idea. Some time back i stated that US should accept that it has screwed up. Inform all Iraq's neighbours it was pulling out and ask for the neighbours to help. I said that a while back in another thread. and funnily enough since then the neighbours have stated they are willing to help IF the US leaves.
This way, the Saudi's of the world can at least attempt to control the Sunni groups and Iran can influence Shia groups. For that the US needs to swallow its pride, ADMIT it has messed up and ask IRAN for some help who are clearly in the driving seat in my opinion.

benwj wrote:It was always going to get worse before it got better. And it isn't going to get any better unless they can break the cycle of violence.

Erm no. The assumption at the time of invasion was that soldiers were to be greeted with flowers. terrible miscalculation!
Breaking this cycle of violence may curb the sectarian violence. But the initial Violence against the Occupiers would still continue. Why? because no country wants to be occupied. And to stop violence against the aggressors is to accept defeat, im not sure the nationalists(who i beleive are the real people fighting the US, not a supposed handfull of terrorsists) will warm to that.

benwj wrote:You stop teaching your children to hate Americans/Sunnis/Shiites or whoever. When they are old enough to find out themselves they are usually smart enough to know that violence is not the answer.
This is what the Republic of Ireland started doing a generation ago and the IRA is now struggling for members. In other worlds the extremists will eventually die out.

If you look back, all these people lived in quite a peacefull co existence for 100+ years in comparative terms other than their battles against the Ottomans. That means Sunni's and Shias, side by side. What went wrong? why has it all blown up full scale in the last 2 years?
The assumption you make here is that it is the parents who are teaching the kids to hate. If that was the case, Iraq would have been wiped out of any population a long long time ago.
Additionally, No one needs to teach a kid to Hate American Soldiers. Kids watch TV and see pictures of humiliation in Abu Ghraib. Hear stories from other members of tribes. Watch before their very eyes, their family memebers being shot dead by US soldiers... it doesnt take a parent to tell him to hate. And you cannot expect a parent to tell the kid "Your daddy was shot to pieces for a good reason" even though he was innocent.
And as far as i understand Iraq is a tribal type nation. So from my understanding if one person dies from one tribe, the whole tribe wants revenge. So thats a lot of angry people vowing revenge from one death, regardless what the parents say to the kids.

benwj wrote:Re Iran: Telling the world that you are going to destroy Israel is not a good move. Best you keep that to yourself.

Maybe you are not aware, but Iran was part of the "AXIS OF EVIL" way before Ahmedenijad came to power. and the threatening Rhetoric againt iran started back in 2001 way before the comments about Israel and the Holocaust.

benwj wrote:It is extremly difficult, but you need to draw the line somewhere. Right now Iran/Iraq/Lebanon and Palestine have the opportunity to take the moral higher ground.
American has screwed up.
Punishing them by violence will NOT work... and justifying it is just as bad.

At least you admit Americans have screwed up.
Iraq/Lebanon and Palestine are in the midst of civil war or internal struggles. They have no chance at the moment in my opinion. Re: Iran, what does it have to do? Nothing it does seems to be enough.
But what i dont believe is that they are being "Punished". It is making it seem like they are being unfairly targeted while they are occupying a land illegally. Nobody wants violence, but how else do you overthrow an occupier? Nelson Mandela is a hero... but he didnt fight his case in a classroom. All insurgencies are violent.

The whole situation is very sad, and how diferent things may have been without these unneccessary wars.

Sadly you're always going to have people being labelled, until people stop seeing each other as Arab, Western, Muslim, Christian etc etc, and just look at each other as human beings ans nothing more.

THe whole Saddam thing was a disaster. The American militaqry has said they would have done it differently, opposed how the execution was carried out by the Iraqi government. I'm wondering what they would have done different.

Also the person who's been arrested for filming and distributing the execution has a lot to answer for, I'm amazed that no-one here has even bothered to look at that issue.

rvp_legend wrote:Actually i have not missed the point, as UAE75 pointed, you clearly used democracy as a reason as to why they went to Iraq.

No, I clearly stated that America went into Iraq for control of the Oil, rather than WMD as they claimed. I did not say that they went into Iraq for the sole purpose of establishing a democracy.
Democracy, was what they chose to establish inplace of the dictatorship they removed.
This was only the option that would attract the least amount of critisism.
And before you start harping on about it not being a democracy, I will agree. It won't be a democracy until America leave.

rvp_legend wrote:And i agree with UAE75(i think it was-forgive me if im wrong), to run Iraq you need a strongman within. But not a strongman appointed.

This would never be accepted by the rest of the world. The leader needs to elected by the people, otherwise opposors to him will have grounds to cry foul and justify the use of violence.

rvp_legend wrote:And i can think of a better idea. Some time back i stated that US should accept that it has screwed up. Inform all Iraq's neighbours it was pulling out and ask for the neighbours to help. I said that a while back in another thread. and funnily enough since then the neighbours have stated they are willing to help IF the US leaves.
This way, the Saudi's of the world can at least attempt to control the Sunni groups and Iran can influence Shia groups. For that the US needs to swallow its pride, ADMIT it has messed up and ask IRAN for some help who are clearly in the driving seat in my opinion.

You will need to wait until the next US election to have any hope of an appology.
But what is stopping the neighbours offering help to America?
I don't believe that Iran and Saudi can work together in Iraq without a middle man. America is there now, but no one else is offerring to do the job. All they are doing is sitting back and saying what a terrible job America is doing. Does this sound like they actually care about what is happening, or are they just happy to see America failing?
Can you look at what is happening now and tell me that if the American's leave and are replaced by Saudi and Iran, the violence will stop? I beleive that it will get a lot worse and at best your strongman will rise to become another Saddam.

rvp_legend wrote:Breaking this cycle of violence may curb the sectarian violence. But the initial Violence against the Occupiers would still continue.

If the sectarian violence stopped and an Iraqi governement was established, America would not need to be there.

rvp_legend wrote:Why? because no country wants to be occupied. And to stop violence against the aggressors is to accept defeat, im not sure the nationalists(who i beleive are the real people fighting the US, not a supposed handfull of terrorsists) will warm to that.

You are not sure. I am quite sure that they will not accept defeat. All I am saying is that in this case the use of violence is not the answer. They cannot win against the might of America. It may be a bitter pill to swallow, but this is the fact they need to realise first.

benwj wrote:You stop teaching your children to hate Americans/Sunnis/Shiites or whoever. When they are old enough to find out themselves they are usually smart enough to know that violence is not the answer.
This is what the Republic of Ireland started doing a generation ago and the IRA is now struggling for members. In other worlds the extremists will eventually die out.

rvp_legend wrote:If you look back, all these people lived in quite a peacefull co existence for 100+ years in comparative terms other than their battles against the Ottomans. That means Sunni's and Shias, side by side. What went wrong? why has it all blown up full scale in the last 2 years?

Not exactly side by side. How about 2 separate countries with Iraq stuck in the middle. It was bound to blow up eventually.

rvp_legend wrote:The assumption you make here is that it is the parents who are teaching the kids to hate.

That's because if I said that people should teach their kids that Americans are nice, I would have been flamed big time. So rather than do that, how about just trying to stop them from hating.

rvp_legend wrote:Additionally, No one needs to teach a kid to Hate American Soldiers. Kids watch TV and see pictures of humiliation in Abu Ghraib. Hear stories from other members of tribes. Watch before their very eyes, their family memebers being shot dead by US soldiers... it doesnt take a parent to tell him to hate. And you cannot expect a parent to tell the kid "Your daddy was shot to pieces for a good reason" even though he was innocent.

You are focusing on the bad points. What I am saying is to focus on the good things that America has done. I am sure that you can think of some.

rvp_legend wrote:And as far as i understand Iraq is a tribal type nation. So from my understanding if one person dies from one tribe, the whole tribe wants revenge. So thats a lot of angry people vowing revenge from one death, regardless what the parents say to the kids.

Exactly why I am careful not to piss any locals off for fear that I would have an entire family after me... not just one guy who I can usually deal with .

rvp_legend wrote:Maybe you are not aware, but Iran was part of the "AXIS OF EVIL" way before Ahmedenijad came to power. and the threatening Rhetoric againt iran started back in 2001 way before the comments about Israel and the Holocaust.

I was aware, but Iran seem to enjoy playing the part that America has cast them in.

rvp_legend wrote:At least you admit Americans have screwed up.

I have always said that America made a mistake, but I do not hate them for it. I realise that the majority of Americans are nice people, just like the majority of Iraqis are nice people.

rvp_legend wrote:Nobody wants violence, but how else do you overthrow an occupier?

If you are powerful enough violence is an option, but America will not leave until the violence stops. Does this make them bad?
Wait until a democracy is formed and violence has stopped. Then you can vote for your islamist state or whatever you want and have the constitution changed.
Hammas would be in power in Israel by now if the Palestinians had of realised this and opted non-violently integrate themselves.

benwj wrote:This was only the option that would attract the least amount of critisism.
And before you start harping on about it not being a democracy, I will agree. It won't be a democracy until America leave.

Argument closed.

benwj wrote:This would never be accepted by the rest of the world. The leader needs to elected by the people, otherwise opposors to him will have grounds to cry foul and justify the use of violence.

Being a European myself i am an advocate of democracy as it is by far the best political system.
However a people must want it themselves. So if the people decide on a strongman within their borders, the rest of the world should respect it.

benwj wrote:You will need to wait until the next US election to have any hope of an appology.
But what is stopping the neighbours offering help to America?
I don't believe that Iran and Saudi can work together in Iraq without a middle man. America is there now, but no one else is offerring to do the job. All they are doing is sitting back and saying what a terrible job America is doing. Does this sound like they actually care about what is happening, or are they just happy to see America failing?
Can you look at what is happening now and tell me that if the American's leave and are replaced by Saudi and Iran, the violence will stop? I beleive that it will get a lot worse and at best your strongman will rise to become another Saddam.

Well, the US dug itself a big hole by going Unilateral. I wont be surprised if the others are taking pleasure out of its dificulties.
Saudi and Iran could get along. If at best the UN could mediate. No way can the US be the middle man until it tones down the aggressive rhetoric against Iran.
And yes i agree, that strong man could be another Saddam or even worse. But when you look at the turbulant history it would be just another chapter!

benwj wrote:If the sectarian violence stopped and an Iraqi governement was established, America would not need to be there.

I an ideal world, yes. But many including myself believe the US is attempting to build a permanent base in Iraq. Food for thought i guess.

benwj wrote:You are not sure. I am quite sure that they will not accept defeat. All I am saying is that in this case the use of violence is not the answer. They cannot win against the might of America. It may be a bitter pill to swallow, but this is the fact they need to realise first.

A guerrilla movement is not to conventionally defeat an army but to distract it enough so they do not meet their objecttives. I believe this is what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan. Things are not going so well hence the arrival of more troops.

benwj wrote:Not exactly side by side. How about 2 separate countries with Iraq stuck in the middle. It was bound to blow up eventually.

a larger war in the region would ensue. Turkey will crush the kirds and claim Kirkuk. way too much oil there to be left alone... thats why it was best to leave it alone and hope Saddams sons were overthrown from within.

benwj wrote:That's because if I said that people should teach their kids that Americans are nice, I would have been flamed big time. So rather than do that, how about just trying to stop them from hating.

As i mentioned a few posts back. There is a massive different between hating americans and hating american foreign policy.
Most Iraqis will never meet a nice normal American. They will only meet American soldiers. The Hate is for the soldiers stationed illegally in their nation.... not the average hillbilly who is a pleasant individual

benwj wrote:You are focusing on the bad points. What I am saying is to focus on the good things that America has done. I am sure that you can think of some.

Way more negative than positive has come out of this war so the positives are small consolations. History will judge the overall positives.

benwj wrote:Exactly why I am careful not to piss any locals off for fear that I would have an entire family after me... not just one guy who I can usually deal with .

Haha! very true!

benwj wrote:I was aware, but Iran seem to enjoy playing the part that America has cast them in.

Iran is just trying to be defiant in the face of threats. It obviously is gaining some strength from watching the US struggle in Iraq and Afghanistan knowing that more damage in those areas will mean an unlikely invasion. other surrounding countries are also seeing this as a possibility.

benwj wrote:I have always said that America made a mistake, but I do not hate them for it. I realise that the majority of Americans are nice people, just like the majority of Iraqis are nice people.

Again, most Iraqis hate the soldiers who represent foreign policy. They do not hate normal americans as they are not in their country. Same as the Forum contributors. People dislike the policy not the people. That distinction is always overlooked.

benwj wrote:If you are powerful enough violence is an option, but America will not leave until the violence stops. Does this make them bad?
Wait until a democracy is formed and violence has stopped. Then you can vote for your islamist state or whatever you want and have the constitution changed.
Hammas would be in power in Israel by now if the Palestinians had of realised this and opted non-violently integrate themselves.

its a paradox. The violence will not stop until the US leaves. so we can both agree that it will keep continuing.
and i do not believe that an islamic state can be formed in Iraq democratically as the US as already warned that it will not let it happen for as long as it holds influence.

Your Hamas/Israel argument is one for another day and another topic.

rvp_legend wrote:Saudi and Iran could get along. If at best the UN could mediate. No way can the US be the middle man until it tones down the aggressive rhetoric against Iran.

On the UN point, although it is supposed to be an effective international force, UN troops are often very ineffectual, not least because they have so many different interests to uphold it means they very rarely act. Some would say they need a force that's not involved but violence would only escalate as the police lost control.

One other point of general note to people here, the US went in to Iraq to secure oil supplies in general, not just to "loot" Iraqi oil as is said here. It's an important distinction - what they didn't want (though they won't admit it) is for Iraq to stop supply of oil to the rest of the world, thereby pushing up global oil prices. The oil itself goes all over the globe and people should remember Iraq is being paid for it, it's hardly looting.

benwj wrote:If the sectarian violence stopped and an Iraqi governement was established, America would not need to be there.

I an ideal world, yes. But many including myself believe the US is attempting to build a permanent base in Iraq. Food for thought i guess.

Why would the US want to build a permanent base in Iraq? It's got bases in much safer places already (Turkey, Saudi, Qatar, UAE etc.). People will say "for the oil" but they know they need to get out for the country to stabilise, they're not that stupid.

I still think too many people gloss over this Shia/ Sunni thing as if it's all America's fault. The invasion was the catalyst, the raw material was already there long before Bush got trigger-happy.

scot1870 wrote:On the UN point, although it is supposed to be an effective international force, UN troops are often very ineffectual, not least because they have so many different interests to uphold it means they very rarely act. Some would say they need a force that's not involved but violence would only escalate as the police lost control.

Although i agree about the UN not having the strongest and best functioning of armed forces, the point i was trying to make was that the UN would be the better mediator over the US in bringing all of Iraq's neighbours to the table.

scot1870 wrote:One other point of general note to people here, the US went in to Iraq to secure oil supplies in general, not just to "loot" Iraqi oil as is said here. It's an important distinction - what they didn't want (though they won't admit it) is for Iraq to stop supply of oil to the rest of the world, thereby pushing up global oil prices. The oil itself goes all over the globe and people should remember Iraq is being paid for it, it's hardly looting.

I mentioned Oil "Looted" i dont think anyone else did. But i didnt say the americans went to loot the country. If you look back you will find i said that the Iraqi people cannot stop hating american policy and forgive them so easily and this was one of the few reasons i provided. Millions of $$ worth of Oil revenue is unaccounted for during the first 2 years of the invasion.

scot1870 wrote:Why would the US want to build a permanent base in Iraq? It's got bases in much safer places already (Turkey, Saudi, Qatar, UAE etc.). People will say "for the oil" but they know they need to get out for the country to stabilise, they're not that stupid.

Turkish Base is not safe as it was. Any split of Iraq and all hell breaks loose, in south Eastern Turkey, where the Kurdish populations are.
The Saudi base is trimming all the time and only recentl;y the Saudi govt asked the US forces to reduce numbers.
They know "Now" that they need to get out. It wasnt in their original plan i dont believe. But thats my opinion and i have my reasons for taking this position.

scot1870 wrote:I still think too many people gloss over this Shia/ Sunni thing as if it's all America's fault. The invasion was the catalyst, the raw material was already there long before Bush got trigger-happy.

And i will repeat once again... look back 100+ years of Iraq's history and you will find that apart from the skirmishes with the Ottomans it was never this bad. So even if all the ingredients were there, it took something very irresponsible to trigger it off.
Its a bit like Palestine and Israel. Jews lived happily with the Arabs for centuries...did it ever implode? the ingredients were certainly there. It was only when the State of Israel was created, mass migration started, and unfair distribution of land was arrangedd did the whole thing kick off and became a Jewish / Arab issue.

There are potential melting points all over the world. We cannot assume things would have happened anyway.