Two More Things People Think But Won't Say

[suppasonic]

Yeah. Giving women the right to vote was a big mistake too.

Lets just put them all back in the kitchen where they belong. I'd rather have burned pot roast 3 times a month then have them making bad decisions in the workplace 3 times a month.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Both Amnesty Int'l and Human Rights Watch estimate Saddam killed 1.5mm-2mm people in Iraq, and tried to wipe out the Kurds entirely.

[/ QUOTE ]Where is this "1.5mm-2mm" figure coming from, please? I hope you are not referring to victims in the Iraq-Iran war, are you?


[/ QUOTE ]

Why does it make a difference if someone was killed by Sadam's army or his police? He was in control of both and is thus responsible.

[/ QUOTE ]I was against Saddam Hussein when he started the war against Iran. As a lot of people were. But , at the time, the West supported Iraq and provided Saddam with all sorts of help. This support resulted in (a) prolongation of the slaughter, (b) further anti-western radicalization of the Tehran regime, (c) significant gains in popular support for the Tehran regime (as routinely happens when a nation is attacked from outside, people tend to rally around the national leadership), etc.

Saddam was responsible for starting the war. Iran and Iraq can share the blame for the resulting deaths, almost equally. Both regimes refused to accept anything but surrender from the other side, even when it was obvious they had a bloody stalemate on their hands.

But this does not make a war equal to terrorism, strictly speaking. (And we must be strict and accurate, else we turn to modern Rushdoonys! WTF?)

So, Saddam may have been responsible for starting a war that caused upwards of a million dead. But, Saddam's domestic repressin caused, most probably, and as Sklansky suggested, "tens of thousands" of victims.

Keep it real.

[Piers]

1. I have difficulty understanding the point; maybe I am the wrong nationality. As long as it does not effect on their standard of living, I think people identify with their countries foreign policy much the same as they might support a sports team.

2. All things are not equal. In practice I think any woman who could overcome the immense prejudice to become a serious presidential candidate would usually be the best one. If she were ugly it would be a clincher.

The exception would be if there were some exceptional reason why she was so popular. Say she was the widow of a previous president who made some extremely brave and successful actions.

Of course that’s just me, some people will put more enthuses on the PMS factor. Most probably wont even think about it. Sorry what was the point again?

[wiseheart]

should we not elect men because they are
biologically more prone to war? I mean using
Sklansky's reasoning, because some small percentage
of men are more likely to go to war due to biological
factors (as shown in plenty of studies, Ill gladly get
one for you if you want, Im an IR Major)

Also, you confuse sex with gender. Learn the
difference between the two. A woman can be a woman
and still not have periods PMS or even certain
sexual organs.

Finally, you give a great opening to the whole deal
with voting. Any candidate you choose has the ability
to [censored] up completely. Thus, don't vote. Simple.

[mikechops]

Micky,

From OP
[ QUOTE ]

...The fact that Sadam was a ruthless dictator who supressed rights and killed tens of thosands of innocents...


[/ QUOTE ]

Given the context of the quote, I don't think it is nit-picking to point out that he was also responsible for starting a war causing the death of millions. Even if others share some blame, I think we'd agree he gets the lion's share? Putting his butcher's bill at ten of thousands significantly understates the case for getting rid of him.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
From OP
[ QUOTE ]

...The fact that Sadam was a ruthless dictator who supressed rights and killed tens of thosands of innocents...


[/ QUOTE ]

Given the context of the quote, I don't think it is nit-picking to point out that he was also responsible for starting a war causing the death of millions. Even if others share some blame, I think we'd agree he gets the lion's share? Putting his butcher's bill at ten of thousands significantly understates the case for getting rid of him.

[/ QUOTE ]I agree that the Iran/Iraq War casualties are absolutely necessary to complete Saddam Hussein's record.

But they are not IMHO adding anything to the case for "getting rid of him".

The case for regime change in Baghdad has been (a) realitistically, to effectively control a substantial part of the world's oil reserves, (b) ideologically, to get rid of an enemy of America's and --mostly-- Israel's, and (c) belatedly, to bring democracy in the region.

They could not sell none of the above to the public, so, as a poker expert & author very early in the affair put it on this board, they went for the more easily digestible casus belli of WMDs.

Mickey Brausch

[mikechops]

Two points:

1. If I were president, I'd disagree that someone responsible for the mega-deaths is none of our business. I'm not commiting to get get rid of him on that basis alone, but I'd ask how easy it would be and what is in it for the US. If he were just a mildly thugish dictator? - meh.

2. The reason 'selling' WMDs as a casus belli to the public worked, was because of how scary Sadam having them was. And it was scary because of his past record of starting wars, not because he was a repressive dictator. I guess you could argue anybody else having nukes is scary, but I'd say a dicatator who has already started two wars is the worst possible person to have them. I'd say that it was scary enough that the people doing the 'selling', actually sold that idea to themselves before they sold it to the public.

[Will in New Have]

1: Saddam and his clique has been deposed but our troops still takes casualties and nothing gets rebuilt. This is largely due to how badly the aftermath of the shooting war was handled but the situation is complex and our policy guys don't handle complex very well. The "shape of the peace" is unclear and may be unachievable. It is very hard to get people behind fighting for nothing and we are achieving nothing. We already achieved getting rid of the Baathists. They won't be back.

The biggest problem in Iraq is that there are almost no Iraquis who see the outcome wanted by our government, a secular democracy governing the whole country, as their favorite option.

A: In the north, the Kurds would like an independant Kurdistan. This isn't unreasonable but it would lead to real trouble with Iran, about whose desires we do not care, and with Turkey, a valued ally. It is very likely that the "secular democracy governing the whole country" option is a fairly strong second favorite among the Kurds and that they would support a central government that wasn't oppressive.

B: In the center, the Sunni would like to run the whole country, as they did under Saddam, without having to listen to the Kurds or the Shia. They don't really want independance as they would be very poor in resources but independance would be their second choice. The "secular democracy governing the whole country" option comes in last among the Sunni because they would be a powerless minority and one against whom both the Kurds and the Shia have very large grudges. Oddly enough, most of the Sunni in Iraq and their leaders are not Islamic extremists. Their problem with the Shia is that they know very well how they treated the Shia when they were on top and they see the reversal coming.

3: The Shia might be fine with "secular democracy governing the whole country" because they would be running it. However, it would not remain secular very long. The very basis of the Shia/Sunni split was about who got to run things after the death of the Prophet. "Secular" is fairly meaningless to the Shia leaders. If they ever unify, the Shia could demonstrate that "democratic" and "oppressive" are compatible. Some, perhaps many, Shia leaders want foreign troops out because they want their rule unmonitered.

4: There are other elements in the country who are simply in opposition to "secular democracy governing the whole country." They are in favor of a permanent Jihad and none of the three major factions finds them comfortable neighbors. They inflict a very large percentage of the casualties in comparison to their numbers but would not be a huge local factor after a coalition withdrawl.

[cardman98]

thank god we dont run a country like a business or we would be in real trouble. The united states is not built to make money. This war doesnt even come close to the cost of free healthcare, section 8 , and welfare combined. Wake up and cry about the crap we spend here. Oh and by the way we have a vested interest in Irag its called oil Fuccing MoMO.. FACT Its more dangerous statisticaly for a black male between ages of 18-24 to be killed in detroit than in Irag. that is a fact sorry all i did was state facts.

[tewall]

Hillary Clinton is 59. How could she have PMS?