Russia - worrying?

[ngb1066]

The execution of the war and pre planning led to many of the problems after. But removing Saddam Hussein was the correct thing to do. They should have taken him out in 1991.

300,000 Bodies in mass graves scattered around the dessert

estimated between 80,000 to 200,000 civilians killed in the 1991 uprisings against him
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq

Destruction of entire towns
http://youtu.be/O7bY8aovjuw

It was a criminal government the likes of Hitler and Stalin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFseD4B3aFg

His sons even fed people to lions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nb8h6d7l3U

http://youtu.be/5Y8wN911rMc

Iv read extensively on the Baathist rule of Iraq its very interesting due to sheer criminality of it.

I agree that the Baathist rule of Iraq was appalling.  I personally knew some victims of it.  There was an active though heavily suppressed opposition within Iraq.  It was for the Iraqi people to implement regime change, not an invading superpower.

[maggie]

I agree that the Baathist rule of Iraq was appalling.  I personally knew some victims of it.  There was an active though heavily suppressed opposition within Iraq.  It was for the Iraqi people to implement regime change, not an invading superpower.

I agree however although |I was against the 1st war in 1991 I do believe that once in Iraq the US let down the Iraqi opposition when they encouraged them to go for Saddam and then withdrew leaving them exposed to appalling abuse and murder by Saddam and his troops.

[ngb1066]

I agree however although |I was against the 1st war in 1991 I do believe that once in Iraq the US let down the Iraqi opposition when they encouraged them to go for Saddam and then withdrew leaving them exposed to appalling abuse and murder by Saddam and his troops.

That is a fair point Maggie. 

[David1819]

I agree that the Baathist rule of Iraq was appalling.  I personally knew some victims of it.  There was an active though heavily suppressed opposition within Iraq.  It was for the Iraqi people to implement regime change, not an invading superpower.

The only way a regime change could happen without foreign intervention is if some of his generals attempted to get rid of him. The Iraqi military could not be opposed by the people if using such callous methods simply just sending in Jets and Helicopters to drop gas on people.

There where uprisings in 1988 and he just bombed them with chemical weapons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack

But if you look at the timeline of events from 9/11 till the invasion of Iraq without any hindsight bias you can understand why the US decided to remove him. However in my view they should have and could have done it alone without our support.

[ngb1066]

The only way a regime change could happen without foreign intervention is if some of his generals attempted to get rid of him. The Iraqi military could not be opposed by the people if using such callous methods simply just sending in Jets and Helicopters to drop gas on people.

There where uprisings in 1988 and he just bombed them with chemical weapons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack

But if you look at the timeline of events from 9/11 till the invasion of Iraq without any hindsight bias you can understand why the US decided to remove him. However in my view they should have and could have done it alone without our support.

So do you believe the USA has the right to be the policeman of the world?  The USA has an appalling history of illegal intervention to further what their administration believes is in their interest.  Apart from Iraq and Afghanistan Vietnam, Cambodia, Chile, Nicaragua and Grenada spring to mind.  There is certainly no moral imperitive behind their actions -they have no problem in supporting and propping up the most vile regimes when it suits them.

[David1819]

So do you believe the USA has the right to be the policeman of the world?  The USA has an appalling history of illegal intervention to further what their administration believes is in their interest.  Apart from Iraq and Afghanistan Vietnam, Cambodia, Chile, Nicaragua and Grenada spring to mind.  There is certainly no moral imperitive behind their actions -they have no problem in supporting and propping up the most vile regimes when it suits them.

A Nation like the USA should provide the majority of military means to prevent genocide and contain rouge states yes as it has the power to do so.

Are you saying it was right for the USA to do nothing to prevent the Rwandan genocide when it could have been prevented.

Are you saying it was wrong for the USA to help us during WW2?

The US was already in Vietnam before the conflict the south Vietcong wanted them their. The US had military instalments in Vietnam from ww2 it was communist insurgency that got the states involved. Same with south Korea they asked the US to help them and they did then it was China that threw the Americans out North Korea.

To be pragmatic the major economies are all globalized now everything has a ripple effect. Isolationism is more or less impossible.



 

[ngb1066]

A Nation like the USA should provide the majority of military means to prevent genocide and contain rouge states yes as it has the power to do so.

Are you saying it was right for the USA to do nothing to prevent the Rwandan genocide when it could have been prevented.

Are you saying it was wrong for the USA to help us during WW2?

The US was already in Vietnam before the conflict the south Vietcong wanted them their. The US had military instalments in Vietnam from ww2 it was communist insurgency that got the states involved. Same with south Korea they asked the US to help them and they did then it was China that threw the Americans out North Korea.

To be pragmatic the major economies are all globalized now everything has a ripple effect. Isolationism is more or less impossible.

I do not accept your assessment of the USA as a benign world uncle.  The USA's involvement in Vietnam was solely to prop up a corrupt and extremely unpleasant administration in the south.  They used as a pretext the Bay of Tonkin "incident" which was a classic false flag con.  Fortunately the USA met its match and were driven out in 1975.  Vietnam was then liberated, by the very people who had driven out the French occupiers, but many lives were lost, including American lives, totally needlessly.

Of course I am not saying that the USA should not have joined the war alongside the UK, USSR and the other allies.  If you have forgotten Japan launched a preemptive strike against Pearl Harbor.  WW2 was a war against terrifying and almost unbelievable evil.   

Military action, save in clear self defence, should only be taken with UN approval.  That is why the UN was formed.   

[maggie]

I do not accept your assessment of the USA as a benign world uncle.  The USA's involvement in Vietnam was solely to prop up a corrupt and extremely unpleasant administration in the south.  They used as a pretext the Bay of Tonkin "incident" which was a classic false flag con.  Fortunately the USA met its match and were driven out in 1975.  Vietnam was then liberated, by the very people who had driven out the French occupiers, but many lives were lost, including American lives, totally needlessly.

Of course I am not saying that the USA should not have joined the war alongside the UK, USSR and the other allies.  If you have forgotten Japan launched a preemptive strike against Pearl Harbor.  WW2 was a war against terrifying and almost unbelievable evil.   

Military action, save in clear self defence, should only be taken with UN approval.  That is why the UN was formed.   

Absolutely Neil, the USA treat the UN with contempt. 

[David1819]

Military action, save in clear self defence, should only be taken with UN approval.  That is why the UN was formed.   

Ideally yes. But the world is not ideal

But if you have a despot like Saddam violating international law the way he was how do you stop him from doing so? Breaking international law to remove someone else breaking international law that's a bit of a dilemma, Putting theory over practise don't always work

[gringo]

Ideally yes. But the world is not ideal

But if you have a despot like Saddam violating international law the way he was how do you stop him from doing so? Breaking international law to remove someone else breaking international law that's a bit of a dilemma, Putting theory over practise don't always work

  You may be happy with the US being the world police but you have to understand that the vast majority of people in the world are not. In fact the majority of the world see the US as the biggest threat to world peace.
     The UN while far from ideal and in need of much reform is still the only route to authorise military action. Most of the problem with the UN is that the US often bend it to their will by economic bullying of smaller countries, or use their veto to prevent any action against allies of theirs. The US veto is wielded disproportionately especially where Israel is concerned.
     The US government cannot decide who is or isn't a despot who needs removing and surely if you thought it through you would realise that. Their alliance with Saudi Arabia makes anything they have to say about human rights abuses and lack of democratic freedoms elsewhere redundant. You cannot take seriously anyone who can ally with the Saudis and claim simultaneously to support democracy and human rights. It is truly beyond satire.
     Decisions about serious international affairs that affect the world cannot be left to whoever a half informed brainwashed US electorate elect as their President and surely this point shouldn't need debating. It is self evident that it is intolerable for one countries leaders to bend the world to their own will.
     If the UN and international law are insufficient to solve the world's problems then reform them but starting wars and invading countries only ever makes things worse.   

[maggie]

  You may be happy with the US being the world police but you have to understand that the vast majority of people in the world are not. In fact the majority of the world see the US as the biggest threat to world peace.
     The UN while far from ideal and in need of much reform is still the only route to authorise military action. Most of the problem with the UN is that the US often bend it to their will by economic bullying of smaller countries, or use their veto to prevent any action against allies of theirs. The US veto is wielded disproportionately especially where Israel is concerned.
     The US government cannot decide who is or isn't a despot who needs removing and surely if you thought it through you would realise that. Their alliance with Saudi Arabia makes anything they have to say about human rights abuses and lack of democratic freedoms elsewhere redundant. You cannot take seriously anyone who can ally with the Saudis and claim simultaneously to support democracy and human rights. It is truly beyond satire.
     Decisions about serious international affairs that affect the world cannot be left to whoever a half informed brainwashed US electorate elect as their President and surely this point shouldn't need debating. It is self evident that it is intolerable for one countries leaders to bend the world to their own will.
     If the UN and international law are insufficient to solve the world's problems then reform them but starting wars and invading countries only ever makes things worse.   

The Saudis are appalling and America calling them their alies is a total disgrace. The US have sold their soul for oil.

[David1819]

  You may be happy with the US being the world police but you have to understand that the vast majority of people in the world are not. In fact the majority of the world see the US as the biggest threat to world peace.
     The UN while far from ideal and in need of much reform is still the only route to authorise military action. Most of the problem with the UN is that the US often bend it to their will by economic bullying of smaller countries, or use their veto to prevent any action against allies of theirs. The US veto is wielded disproportionately especially where Israel is concerned.
     The US government cannot decide who is or isn't a despot who needs removing and surely if you thought it through you would realise that. Their alliance with Saudi Arabia makes anything they have to say about human rights abuses and lack of democratic freedoms elsewhere redundant. You cannot take seriously anyone who can ally with the Saudis and claim simultaneously to support democracy and human rights. It is truly beyond satire.
     Decisions about serious international affairs that affect the world cannot be left to whoever a half informed brainwashed US electorate elect as their President and surely this point shouldn't need debating. It is self evident that it is intolerable for one countries leaders to bend the world to their own will.
     If the UN and international law are insufficient to solve the world's problems then reform them but starting wars and invading countries only ever makes things worse.   

In an ideal world no but unfortunately that's the case. Many people are too dumb for their own democracy but that's how it is 

[gringo]

The Saudis are appalling and America calling them their alies is a total disgrace. The US have sold their soul for oil.

  Yes and probably the world's most prolific sponsors of terrorism too Maggie. The Saudis are the worst, in a packed field, of despotic US and UK allies.

[gringo]

In an ideal world no but unfortunately that's the case. Many people are too dumb for their own democracy but that's how it is 

  Yes and that's what we need to change. At the moment Putin and Russia are doing all they can to stop the megalomaniacs in our governments and it is ironic that they are criticized for this by the very people who should inform themselves enough to stop voting for the warmongers themselves.

[David1819]

  Yes and that's what we need to change. At the moment Putin and Russia are doing all they can to stop the megalomaniacs in our governments and it is ironic that they are criticized for this by the very people who should inform themselves enough to stop voting for the warmongers themselves.

You can't change most of humanity being stupid unfortunately. Most people in east Ukraine want a pro Russian Government so I have no problems with what Putin is doing. I don't think our government cares about Ukraine there is not much we could do about it.