Did we have the right to change the government in Iraq?

SniperWannabee

Active member
For me this is a very hard questian to answer because some of my friends that are Iraqi say yes and no. I myself cannot answer, but to me your answers can do me some good. :shock:



Mod Edit: Moved the Post from History to here.
 
Is there really any correct answer to this question I think not only onecan speculate. Put yourself in their place, imagine some power house coming into our country, take out our leadership and then tell us that we are going to run our country like they run theirs because it will be better for mankind. I mean I am not defending Sadaam or anyone I just think that would kind of be hard to swallow. The only one that knows if it is right or not is the Lord above because he has all the answers whether we can see them or not is up to him, but what would be the point if we had the answer to all of lifes questions. I think that something had to be done because there was a potential threat to the Iraqis, Americans and the whole world. Weapons of mass destruction and Sadaam are things that shouldnt be taken lightly. I dont think it matters if it was right or not I think what is more important is what is going to happen now. All the people that have already sacrficed their lifes and for what, do we really know. God bless the troops and their families!!!!!!!!!
 
I just tell you that: hadn't the US decided to wage war against my country 60 yrs ago, and changed the government, I wouldn't be here now, maybe.
Hadn't it intervened in Germany, Japan, South Korea and other tons of countries they would have been poor and not free now.
If you believe in something, forget about philosophy or hyperlegalism.
I don't mean do what you want or total anarchy by that, I'm just saying sometimes - yeah changing a government is a good thing. And I dont see the point of wondering whether it was right or wrong to overthrow Saddam's rule over Iraq.
 
well i dont think there was really much to change.

Saddam was the absolute dictator of Iraq. althogh he had ministers to do the work, essentially all decisions were left up to him.

i dont really understand the type government put in to replace his. anyone want to shed some light on its actual mechanics?

:D
 
Snauhi said:
meyby it would be better if Iraqis got to vote..

Right, thats precisely the schedule that the Americans have always had in similar cases. This time it's gonna be January at the latest.

you are smart enough to understand that it takes at least a couple of months before 20 mill people in a country like that be able to hold regular elections.
They havent had regular elections forever, I guess it will only be good if they now wait 3 more months, Snauhi.
Remember it took 5 yrs of military occupation in Japan before a Constitution was signed and elections were held. Look at Japan now. Ok apart from that weird phototaking dna gene of theirs.
 
Imagine growing up wearing the clothes you want and listening to your music and having freedom. Then BAM one day some angry people come into your country, take out the president and kill half the country and try to tell you that you can't wear those clothes or listen to that music, the music, clothes and freedom you grew up with never knowing different. I am so sure that you wouldn't fight back(NOT!)

The U.S. wouldn't take it and why should they. I know Saddam was horrible for their country but shit happens for a reason. There are so many bad things going on the in the world that is the U.S. going to try to run to the rescue and save the day. I think not.

How does the outcome of war lead to peace? There are so many deaths and so many tragedies during war how is that one bit peaceful?

"If we let them be, maybe just maybe they will leave us be."
 
Right or Wrong now west have poked their noses into a hell hole and If US really want buisness this time they have to understand that they have to finish this once and for all, and to make that happend they have to change all middle east nations gouvernments or they will pay as Europe with much more blood than we can imagine. But that will not happend and a convertion of millions of Islamists in a rage, fuming in every moske there is on this planet against our lifestyle. So no, I don´t think it was right to change gouvernment in Iraq or in Afghanistan.

:|


Why? Because all have to understand that those peoples are ruled by a very small elite. Our allies today can easily be overruned towmorrow by fundamentalists that don´t give a damn about civilian death casualtis or their own deaths because they do not have our christian values and they don´t have the understanding of human life as we have in these nations that we call west, and when that day comes when Pakistan or some other nuclear nation gets enough and tells the friday prayer crowd that its time to get ridd of us.

:firedevi:

I hope my spaceshuttle is on it`s way to the other side of this galaxy by than because at that time Hell will rule on this earth and Adolf Hitler, Stalin you name it will look pretty harmless when these guys take charge and begin their holy war on more places than in their own countries and US soil and Spanish soil. If you get your troops out of these coalitions and think that if we just sit still and don´t bother them they will keep their hands of us. You are eather a fool or a naiv psyko that is praying for another world in the name of Islam. You just have to read the british writer V.S. Naipaul nobelprise winner 2001 Beyond Beliefe and you will experiance the true nature of the Islam and their real goals with there religion.

:rambo:

The final takeover is not far away so now when the damage is allready done and almost at it`s peak we can just sit down and let them kill us of one after one or the gouvernments that have protected this maniacs and evil peoples can take there responsibility and get rid of them before the big one is here to wipe us of this damn planet once and for all. This is why it isn´t right to attack nations like Iraq or Afghanistan if you dont finish the job, then you wont win anything in the long end!

:roll:

If it sounds like Iam demonising people, well maby I do, these middle eastern peoples and their Islam, they stone women to death if the woman has been raped for crying out loud! Does that sound normal and human to you? They are nothing less than women oppressors, and their whole religion is based on that. So yes, maby I am demonising them but I have a darn good reason aswell look at the freaking sharia laws they give me the shiver!

:cen:


Cheers:
Doc.S

:viking:
 
Linnea said:
Imagine growing up wearing the clothes you want and listening to your music and having freedom. Then BAM one day some angry people come into your country, take out the president and kill half the country and try to tell you that you can't wear those clothes or listen to that music, the music, clothes and freedom you grew up with never knowing different. I am so sure that you wouldn't fight back(NOT!)

The U.S. wouldn't take it and why should they. I know Saddam was horrible for their country but shit happens for a reason. There are so many bad things going on the in the world that is the U.S. going to try to run to the rescue and save the day. I think not.

How does the outcome of war lead to peace? There are so many deaths and so many tragedies during war how is that one bit peaceful?
"If we let them be, maybe just maybe they will leave us be."

okay, to begin with, I doubt they were allowed to wear what clothes they wanted and listen to what music they wanted to at any time. Secondly, with a democracy this will be possible. "How does the outcome of war lead to peace" Well, I suppose it would be preferable to you that WWII never occured, and the entire jewish population, for the most part, would be wiped out. Nazi Germany would rule much of Europe, but hey, everyone would be happy, right? War is sometimes the nest solution. Not always, but sometimes. And Doc S. is 100% right on "if we leave them be, maybe they will leave us be." We pretty much left them alone, but then we had the 1st WTC bombing, and then, we had the USS Cole, and The embassy bombing's and probably more. There are so many I can't even remember. Oh yeah, and then we had 9/11. Don't tell me that bull about how they'll leave us alone if we don't bother them. We HELPED them (War against the soviets in Afghanistan) and they have remained ungrateful and hostile. This is a problem that needs to be ended immediatley.
 
Spartan said:
We HELPED them (War against the soviets in Afghanistan) and they have remained ungrateful and hostile. This is a problem that needs to be ended immediatley.

Yes, um .. probably best to use another example, especially since the US were the ones that armed the tribes and lured the Russians into Afghanistan to begin with. Afterall, Russia was our enemy at the time.
 
RnderSafe said:
Spartan said:
We HELPED them (War against the soviets in Afghanistan) and they have remained ungrateful and hostile. This is a problem that needs to be ended immediatley.

Yes, um .. probably best to use another example, especially since the US were the ones that armed the tribes and lured the Russians into Afghanistan to begin with. Afterall, Russia was our enemy at the time.

This is a little off topic Sir, but, what should we have done during that? We were on the wrong side, but both sides were the wrong side :? . Should we have let them fight and destroy each other? That seems like the only concievable option to me.
 
Oh no that wasnt an option. the soviets would have taken over Afghanistan with less expenditures and our enemy would've taken advantage out of that.
 
you know theres something funny bout war.....When theres Hostility...War Leads to a victor...and also someone that loses. In one way it'll lead to peace (temporary at least) but the loser is bitter and it'll cause hatred. That'll lead to vengeance which will ruin the peace and perhaps later lead to war again, no matter how long it takes(sorta like WWI to WWII with germany). Its an ugly cycle and there will never be ever lasting peace. You gotta admint that government over there was just wrong. Maybe we arent the best to do it but who else was? after all the bullcrap is cleared with the dust with all the lies and stuff, in the end Saddamn wasnt even supposed to be there. He should've been out a long time ago. Maybe we're not going about all this the right way, but it isnt a simple thing. Some street folk are like still thinking that we're doing something bad to them but thats just ignorance(ignorance is bliss dont blame them for it). who knows how many decades It'll take to make that place okay
 
?

just dont complain when/if the usa gets overun some time.
if its alright to do it for iraq? where do you draw the line?


:eek:fftopic: i know but the russians wouldn't off defeated the afghans:)
 
saddam killed thousands a year, and 60,000 more starved a year, i think we had the right, also saddam comitted acts of war on us alot, by attacking our airplanes in the no fly zone, he supported/hid/trained/funded terrorist.
 
No. Not without the blessing of the UN!!!!!! ( I guess this will make some people puke.)

The reasons for the US going to war in Iraq are still very mirky (to create a democratic domino effect in the Middle East ?) Creating some sort of democratic government in Iraq will be years away if ever. The country is very tribal like Afghanistan (remember that place!)

People cannot go on comparing Iraq with post war Germany and Japan. They were more homogenous societies than Iraq and we didn't have a choice about that war. I can't stop laughing when I see people using WW2 arguments as a great reason for the Iraq War. :lol:

Italian Guy please read "Conquerors Road" by Omar White.
 
FutureRANGER said:
This is a little off topic Sir, but, what should we have done during that? We were on the wrong side, but both sides were the wrong side :? . Should we have let them fight and destroy each other? That seems like the only concievable option to me.

As I said, Russia was our enemy at the time. They were (in our perception) a far greater threat to us than anyone else, and giving them their own "Vietnam" would ensure a long lasting distraction. It worked, fairly well.
 
The US government perceived the Saddam Hussein regime as a definate threat because he was really in to the terrorist mentality because he used genocide to rule Iraq for several decades. Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorist groups, whether it was the Palistinian suicide bombers families funded by Saddam or producing known chemical weapons and were working on biological/nuclear weapons, when we invaded. Saddam did not abide by any rules. He was buying weapons from China and shipped through Syria. He was attacking US aircraft. He was not cooperating with the UN inspectors and then he ordered them to leave the country. We could have arrested him for war crimes during the Persian Gulf War in 1991 but it was decided to give him another chance and he proved that he would only torture and kill more people. It is my opinion, that we would have had to take him out of the war sooner or later and sooner is better for the Iraqi people and I believe in the long run so will the American people. The unrest is not from the Iraqis but from the jihadists, mainly from Egypt and Sudan, and highly trained al' Quaida, who are providing the training for building improvised explosive devices and raiding techniques.
 
Back
Top