Originally Posted by Ted

If allmost everybody agrees not to invade another country, you shouldn't go there when you see fit!

This should have been valid as well when YOUR country along with mine favored the war on Belgrade and agreed to the bombings of innocents, against the will of the UN. WE killed 10,000 innocents there, and YOUR country gave its consent. Remember, w/o UN approval. Was it just different because the Prez was Clinton at the time? On top of that, Ted, the so-called Coalition of the willing is actually larger than Nato was in 1998-99.

Originally Posted by Ted

Why think that your political or economic system as better then his?

Are you wondering whether our political system is better than Saddam's Iraq's ?

Originally Posted by Italian Guy

This should have been valid as well when YOUR country along with mine favored the war on Belgrade and agreed to the bombings of innocents, against the will of the UN. WE killed 10,000 innocents there, and YOUR country gave its consent. Remember, w/o UN approval. Was it just different because the Prez was Clinton at the time? On top of that, Ted, the so-called Coalition of the willing is actually larger than Nato was in 1998-99.

Are you wondering whether our political system is better than Saddam's
Iraq's ?

Well you got me on the first one... I know that we helped the bombing on the Balcans without a UN mandate. This also supports my ambiguety towards my own government. We say a lot and almost always do something else. I still stand by my, somewhat idealistic, point that international laws should be obyed. And of course there are many examples where the Dutch government made "dirty hands" like so many others.

Secondly. The 2nd point I tried to make is the conviction to call one system better then another. It's like comparing apples to peaches. It is obvious to compare a totalitarian system to a democracy and say the latter is better. But spreading your democracy across the world at a bloody cost, not taking into account many social and cultural specifics of a region, well... to be honest I reckon it is not so much better indeed.

Live and let live. I know I sound like a hippy at the moment but I can't help it.

Originally Posted by Ted

Secondly. The 2nd point I tried to make is the conviction to call one system better then another. It's like comparing apples to peaches. It is obvious to compare a totalitarian system to a democracy and say the latter is better. But spreading your democracy across the world at a bloody cost, not taking into account many social and cultural specifics of a region, well... to be honest I reckon it is not so much better indeed.

I do not agree at all, man. Apples and peaches? Don't you think every single man on earth has a natural right to live in democracy and freedom? An Iraqi as much as an Italian? An Iraqi or an Afghan is not an apple and an Italian or an American a peach. We're either all apples or all peaches, I believe. What you call my democracy is not a false democracy and is virtually the same democracy that they have in Switzerland, or in Australia, or in Ireland, or in the US. The "social and cultural specifics of a region" don't mean their right to democracy is somewhat less important than ours. Nobody violated the cultural specifics of Afghanistan when we let them fairly vote for their free Parliament. Same thing with Iraq. Noone violated those specifics when we let Iraq be the first Arab country where people can freely write on, read and publish one hundred newspapers or vote for the party they want. It's just my opinion, Ted, but yeah you sound so European to me.

Rebuilding a Nation is not a simple five second job. This is years we're talking about here. And when I say years. I mean something close to 10-15 years. When did Federal Republic of Germany become a nation. May 5, 1955. TEN YEARS AFTER the ending of WWII. When did Japan become a nation again. 1952. Come on people. This isn't a cake walk here. If we pull out now. We'll doom these people to some other warlord. And I'm sorry, I have no respect for the UN. They have screwed up one to many times. Rwanda, The Balkans, and the Sudan Darfur Region are just to name a few. Lastly the Whole UN Oil for Food program was nothing but a get rich deal by Kofi Anna and his friends. Hell, his son was in on it.

I was against this war from the very start

I don't want to pile on because that's not a good way to keep a quality give and take. Let's just use another word for Democracy and Theocracy. Let's see, Freedom is a good one for Democracy, God given, not manmade. For Theocracy, I think Despotism is a good one. I don't think that freedom to speak, learn, worship, express your views, pursue happiness for yourself and family, should be hoarded by a few countries while the oppressed suffer and die.

Despotism doesn't allow anything outside the rules set down by a cruel system. Women are not people, other religions are forbidden as evil and satanic, only males are allowed to walk and talk in certain places, any man has a right to beat any woman who he feels is not strictly obeying another man's rules. Death, rather than punishment is preferred by the predominance of people living under Despotism. Suffering is the only lifestyle known by generation upon generation while a privileged few enjoy the lives of kings.

I guess if someone can stand up for non-intervention, then they stand as much chance of suffering the same fate of the downtrodden of the world because, with that attitude, then how can that person expect help from others when they are unwilling to give it.

I, personally, could not stand by while knowing that my neighbor was abusing his family. That's what being Human is, not wanting others to hurt if you can help.

Originally Posted by Missileer

Despotism doesn't allow anything outside the rules set down by a cruel system. Women are not people, other religions are forbidden as evil and satanic, only males are allowed to walk and talk in certain places, any man has a right to beat any woman who he feels is not strictly obeying another man's rules. Death, rather than punishment is preferred by the predominance of people living under Despotism. Suffering is the only lifestyle known by generation upon generation while a privileged few enjoy the lives of kings.

While I am not going to disagree with the last sentence and I really dont want to defend Hussein as he was quite clearly a tyrant the rest of the paragraph does not apply to Iraq under Saddam Hussein's sectarian state in fact it is more likely to be the scenario that emerges now they are free of him.

Wow, I am trying to fit all your reactions into a fitting answer. I agree with 5.56X45mm when he says it takes a long time to rebuild a nation. I agree with Missileer that democracy isn't the right word. But things get kind of dodgy afterwards.
There used to be a group of scientists called the "Vienna school" and they had a tendency to question the specific to the whole. Their relativism ended up in saying that the mass destruction of the Jews was a way of looking at the past and therefor not necessarily true. So it is a feeling I get when a specific group acts in the universal values of mankind. I just think that from a secondary level, there are no universal values. Food, shelter, safety are primair...all the others secundair and thus open for negotiation and interpretation.

Same thing with Iraq. Noone violated those specifics when we let Iraq be the first Arab country where people can freely write on, read and publish one hundred newspapers or vote for the party they want.

I don't know the feelings of the Iraqees. I haven't been there and don't know much about them. But it is the "we let" where I think: how do you know that is what they want. They certainly don't want to be gassed by Saddam's thugs or murdered by his butchers. But how do you know they want a multi party democracy? A system that is based on Khamesaat or Sultan's rule for the last 1000 years isn't ready for such a kind of democracy.
Another thing about bringing peace is the haphazard way of deciding which country gets the attention. I haven't seen it in Ruanda (where buddies of mine were butchered), Liberia or many other African or Asian countries. Why not all or noone? This is what I mean with selective.

What you call my democracy is not a false democracy and is virtually the same democracy that they have in Switzerland, or in Australia, or in Ireland, or in the US.

Is it a coincidence that you mention all AngloSaxon countries or Northwestern countries? This is exactly what I mean with social and cultural differences. People all around the globe had a way of making sure they had to eat, sleep and be safe. If you go beyond that you get things like: nationalism and the right to choose ones own government was explained in Vietnam to be communism. We all know what happened next. And if everything was okay, memorials in Arlington or the wall in DC wouldn't be so ambiguously interpreted by the people who fought there. And the people who live in Saigon aren't off so badly.... at least, not the last time I was there.

Just to make sure: I do not condone what Saddam did and I won't lose any sleep over it. All I wanted to point out is the selective attitude to call Iraq "evil" as Reagan called the former USSR and remove the one in charge for another one. Who garantees the people overthere that life will get actually better? And if you can't garantee that, should you undertake action.... and if so; why just there and not all around the globe?

I agree with the fact that we went to war with Iraq for one simple reason: The "War on Terror" isn't much of a war unless you take out the World's #1 funder of terrorism. But what next? We're in an ugly situation from a PR standpoint. Every dumbass who goes and blows up a big chunk of his countrymen (or fellow Muslims at least, if we're talking about non-Iraqis) becomes our fault somehow. The logic is something like, "If the United States had never toppled Saddam Hussein's regime, these attacks would have never happened ..." While this is a somewhat valid point, its going to take a very very long time for the deathtoll to come anywhere close to equalling Sadam's regime. Over 100,000 dead Kurds is a tough one to beat and that wasn't his only mass murder of civilians.

The sooner we can exit Iraq WITHOUT the whole thing dropping straight into Anarchy, the better. The Democratic process is set in place in its infant form. The Iraqi people now must decide if they value Democracy or whether they will Democraticly decide to eliminate it. (Ironic, isn't it?)The dumbasses can then keep doing what they are doing and it just makes Islam Extremism look worse and worse every day. In turn, all of Islam looks worse and worse and it's adherents might finally focus on eliminating the elements of their culture that created the Extremists in the first place. The USA never deseved the blame for any of it anyways. A banker who repossesses a house from a man is not responsible if that man burns the house down in the middle of the night. That man is still a criminal. Islam as a whole needs to take responsibility for its nutjobs and do one helluva lot more about them.

Since it was brought up several times ... one notable difference between Iraq and Vietnam: The Extremist elements of Iraq don't have a common purpose outside of disruption and stirring up hatred. The Vietcong at least envisioned all of Vietnam united under Communism. What do the Muslim Extremists in Iraq all have for a common vision?

By the way, I voted No. Iraq isn't ready to be left. Hopefully very soon it will be.