Has anything changed in Iraq since Saddam's capture?

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: You can't just proclaim that Hussein needed to be removed and that the US and UK had every right to do so without a serious rethink of foreign policy with regard to other dictators around the world. Its incredibly short sighted to view Hussein as just some unfortunate random occurrence, as opposed to 30 years of Western intervention and power-brokering. If you were sincere about helping the Iraqi's then you would be screaming blue murder about indicting the guys who supported Saddam for all those years when we were pissed off with the Iranians.

Why not? Because it might offend somebody? National interest change over time, with the execption of the enemy of my enemy is my friend!

Having said all that I feel that the sanctions absolutely didn't help - you're quite right. They put back any possibility for revolution. What would have helped would have been less Western support for dictators and Isreali oppression for a very long period of time. That process, as far as I can tell, has not even started now after Sept 11th - when surely anyone could see what the consequences of it were.

I'm glad it has not started since we decided to fight instead of surrender, and this puppy is going to go on for along time, "Hale" it already has been going on for 1000's of years.

[ 12-14-2004, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

Humanitarias against the war? That would be the same humanitarians who allowed the mass graves to be dug and filled. The same Humanitarians who allowed the gassing of the Kurds and the same ones who would have let Saddam keep Kuwait [img]smile.gif[/img] yep them darn humanitarians have the answer to everything

[Azred]

Originally posted by dplax: 1) As I see it now the US is trying to stop Islamic Fundemantalism from spreading 2) but due to several circumstances (example: Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan) there are factors which shall keep the terrorrists going even if their leaders are removed.

1) Unfortunately, this is not true. We are not trying to stop any sort of fundamentalism, only some insurgents/terrorists.

2) True. Terrorists don't stop until they are dead. Their only goal is to kill people, not bring about some sort of social or political change. However, killing some select leaders isn't necessarily a bad idea.

[dplax]

Originally posted by Azred: quote: Originally posted by dplax: 1) As I see it now the US is trying to stop Islamic Fundemantalism from spreading 2) but due to several circumstances (example: Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan) there are factors which shall keep the terrorrists going even if their leaders are removed.

1) Unfortunately, this is not true. We are not trying to stop any sort of fundamentalism, only some insurgents/terrorists.

2) True. Terrorists don't stop until they are dead. Their only goal is to kill people, not bring about some sort of social or political change. However, killing some select leaders isn't necessarily a bad idea. [/QUOTE]I phrased number one wrongly then. I should have said the US is trying to stop Islamic Fundemantalist Terrorists.

About number two we seem to agree so nothing to comment on that I haven't said yet. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Actually there are at least three government organizations (that I know of) with the specific tasking to find ways to combat global Islamic Fundamentalism. Azred, the US has already announced a major initiative towards this end. It is the GWOT. Global War On Terrorism....and while they also assume the responsibility for addressing all forms of terrorism, the major goal and focus right now is in fact Islamic Fundamentalism. I think his statement was correct.