U.S. Bars War Opponents....

[Collegeboy]

About Saddam's capture.

It is good that they captured him.

But with him being away from anything, what difference does it make towards the overall scheme of things, other then some people being happy he was caught. He was not directing resistance forces from his bunker, he was not commmanding these local uprisings. While being a major moral boast for the Army, other then that, it doesn't mean anything.

These groups are not under a central command, they are local people making local decisions on what actions needed to take place. This is not WWII, where capturing Hitler would have brought a end to the war, or close to it. This means hardly anything other then a morale boost. It doesn't stop the attacks, it doesn't make the insurgents and whatever stand up and say it is over. Saddam was not the threat after he left, his government was not the threat, local people rising up for power is the threat.

Waiting for people to take this the wrong way, not think about what I said, and lash out in stupid and immature posting for they see my name and nothing more.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Was the government of India and Iran put forth by a foreign government. No the government was put forth by the people opposing a foreign government. (which you heard me before the war stating that that is what needed to happen.

Actually, the British set up the Indian Government before they left. Kind of funny how it mirrors the British system, eh?

Iran is full of Sunnis (I think that is the one, though might be mistaken), the majority of its people are represented by the government. The US will not allow a Iraqi government to represent the majority of the people for then it will be the same as Iran. The US can not allow that.

It's Shiite actually. Saddam was a Sunni and he repressed the Shiites. We are working quite well with them now. They are the majority on the governing council of Iraq.

Why can you all not do the same.

Because it is more fun not to?

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
Originally posted by Collegeboy
Was the government of India and Iran put forth by a foreign government. No the government was put forth by the people opposing a foreign government. (which you heard me before the war stating that that is what needed to happen.

Actually, the British set up the Indian Government before they left. Kind of funny how it mirrors the British system, eh?

Iran is full of Sunnis (I think that is the one, though might be mistaken), the majority of its people are represented by the government. The US will not allow a Iraqi government to represent the majority of the people for then it will be the same as Iran. The US can not allow that.

It's Shiite actually. Saddam was a Sunni and he repressed the Shiites. We are working quite well with them now. They are the majority on the governing council of Iraq.

Why can you all not do the same.

Because it is more fun not to?

Saddam repressed everybody, but he had to, to prevent civil war. (NOTICE I AM NOT BACING REPRESSION, IT IS A STATEMENT.) The US will not allow an Iraq and an Iran to be of the same relegious denomination.

Look into India, they are huge differences between them and Iraq. How long did Britian remain, what did the Indians have to do to get them out

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I am not saying a race of people are not suited for a type of government. Stop putting words in my mouth. Just like the right. I am saying that there is not one type of government that suits everybody. Would you say Paul Harvey is a rasist? (waiting for your answer, for he said that Democracy is not suited for everyone because it requires self governance, and some people are not ready for self governance.) Democracy has turned South America inside out. They were not ready for it, they are now suffering. There is nothing racist about that, just common sense.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


Saddam repressed everybody, but he had to, to prevent civil war. (NOTICE I AM NOT BACING REPRESSION, IT IS A STATEMENT.) The US will not allow an Iraq and an Iran to be of the same relegious denomination.

Look into India, they are huge differences between them and Iraq. How long did Britian remain, what did the Indians have to do to get them out

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Poland is mainly one religion.

So were the Croats and Serbs! Poland has mixed ethnicity as Coatia and Serbia did. They managed to hold it together though!!

I didn't say it relies on their race, I said it relies on how they are. As others have said Iran and other Arab countries are pushing towards democracy. They seem ready for it, Iraq is not at that point and will have to go through a civil war before they maybe get to that point, but my guess is like in all other cases of Civil War a tyrant will rise not a democracy.

So again, you are judging them guilty in advance. Why can you not see that?? They deserve the chance to make it work. Perhaps with strong support and a "Marshall Plan" for Iraq, they will succeed. Poverty is more of a driving force then anything else. If the new government is able to keep unemployment low and bellies full then maybe they will succeed.

Call me an uncalled for name again and I shall report you. It is uncalled for, and does nothing but show the immaturity of your posting.

*trembles in fear*

[Jeffy-CanCon]

It would be wrong to say that Iraqis are not suited for democracy, but it just might be true to say that they are not yet ready for democracy.

There is a branch of political science that studies the various political systems, and the societies they appear in. There have been a lot of studies on countries attempting the transition to democratic systems. It's been ten years since I studied it, but I do recall that some of the key indicators were (1) size of the middle class; (2) literacy rate; (3) economic health and (4) political involvement of the military.

Compared to the Iranians and the Lebanese, the Iraqis have a very low literacy rate (40%), and a very poor economy (GDP per capita of $2400). And a much more divided society, ethnically & religiously. On the other hand, they have a modern service-based economy, and probably a good-sized middle class. And their new military should be non-political.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


Saddam repressed everybody, but he had to, to prevent civil war. (NOTICE I AM NOT BACING REPRESSION, IT IS A STATEMENT.) The US will not allow an Iraq and an Iran to be of the same relegious denomination.

What do you mean? They already are!!! The Shiites are the majority in both countries. How do you expect the US to change this, kill massive amounts of Shiites?

Look into India, they are huge differences between them and Iraq. How long did Britian remain, what did the Indians have to do to get them out

Passive non-violent resistance. It worked too. Britan was there for over a 100 years by the way!

[Jeffy-CanCon]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
Originally posted by Collegeboy
Poland is mainly one religion.

So were the Croats and Serbs! Poland has mixed ethnicity as Coatia and Serbia did. They managed to hold it together though!!

Croats and Serbs share the same language, and are all Christians, but of different branches. Catholic versus Eastern Orthodox. Similar to Sunni vs. Shi-ia for Muslims, if I understand it correctly.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by shartley

I wouldn't say that the problems in South American are about who they are, or their race either. It is about they were not ready to handle democracy when the US put it on them. Saying that democracy is not for everybody, is not racist, it is the truth. Just like I said, monarchy is not for everyone, just like republicanism isn't for everyone, just like all forms of government. The world revolves in a dialectical pendulum movement. To reach C you have to go through B first, you can not go directly from A to C.

Nope people of all colors and credes can be ready for democracy. They just have to first reach B first.

I haven't been called on anything. You all have sunk to beyond the levels I would put dogs on. According to St Agustus, you are about equal to a rock right now. How dare you resort to call people a rasist just to win an arguement. There is nothing in my statement that can be said to be rasist. Have a good day, hope you get banned.

1DE. What was it the 2 Balkan war in 1992 or 3, where the two countries of Croatia and Serbia broke out into a war. Read the book TO End a War, you shall enjoy it.

As soon as they reach B, they deserve a chance to have what ever govenrment they want. But they need to first reach B.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


Saddam repressed everybody, but he had to, to prevent civil war. (NOTICE I AM NOT BACING REPRESSION, IT IS A STATEMENT.) The US will not allow an Iraq and an Iran to be of the same relegious denomination

And he had to invade Iran and Kuwait to hold his people together. He had to gas the Kurds to keep them in their place. Sounds like justification to me.

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by Jeffy-CanCon


Croats and Serbs share the same language, and are all Christians, but of different branches. Catholic versus Eastern Orthodox. Similar to Sunni vs. Shi-ia for Muslims, if I understand it correctly.

Well not the same language. Croatian and Serbian is similar but not the same. It is like saying Italian and Spannish are the same (but the difference between the two are bigger I think). They have two different alphabets (Croation a latin and Serbian a Cyrllic (Might be backwards)), over a thousand different nouns and such. Croatia is 75 percent Catholic, and Serbia is 65% orthodox. The difference between Sunni vs ****te is much greater and more dangerous then Cathlic vs. Protestant today, think Catholic vs Protestentism back when Lurther nailed the orders on the door.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


I wouldn't say that the problems in South American are about who they are, or their race either. It is about they were not ready to handle democracy when the US put it on them. Saying that democracy is not for everybody, is not racist, it is the truth. Just like I said, monarchy is not for everyone, just like republicanism isn't for everyone, just like all forms of government. The world revolves in a dialectical pendulum movement. To reach C you have to go through B first, you can not go directly from A to C.

Nope people of all colors and credes can be ready for democracy. They just have to first reach B first.

I haven't been called on anything. You all have sunk to beyond the levels I would put dogs on. According to St Agustus, you are about equal to a rock right now. How dare you resort to call people a rasist just to win an arguement. There is nothing in my statement that can be said to be rasist. Have a good day, hope you get banned.

1DE. What was it the 2 Balkan war in 1992 or 3, where the two countries of Croatia and Serbia broke out into a war. Read the book TO End a War, you shall enjoy it.

As soon as they reach B, they deserve a chance to have what ever govenrment they want. But they need to first reach B.

The fact that you fail to realise that your line of "reasoning" is in itself racist further proves the facts that you're ignorant.

Guess what, there are NO conditions that a body of people have to meet to be "allowed" to become a Democracy.

The fact that YOU seem to think so speaks VOLUMES about you and your insane way of thinking.

By your logic, people must be repressed for a while, time unspecified, before they're ALLOWED to be a Democracy.

Here's a clue for you pal, Freedom is EVERYONE'S GOD GIVEN RIGHT. It isn't there to be meted out by some dictator loving pile of morons.

Your analysis forcing some group to go from "a to b to c" is nothing more than lunacy. So tell me what's "b"? A more benficial dictatorship?

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


I wouldn't say that the problems in South American are about who they are, or their race either. It is about they were not ready to handle democracy when the US put it on them.

We did? News to me.

Have a good day, hope you get banned.

Feeling is mutual!

1DE. What was it the 2 Balkan war in 1992 or 3, where the two countries of Croatia and Serbia broke out into a war. Read the book TO End a War, you shall enjoy it.

I understand that! I was pointng out that Poland and Serbia/Croatia are two examples of how things can go. As for an example of going from a BRUTAL dictator to democracy, how about Spain? Franco was a despot, yet Spanish Democracy thrived when he left power. Hmmmm, maybe the Iraqi's can do the same. Also, Spain is stuck fighting terrorists and has diverse ethnic groups within it, yet survived. What do you think?

[shartley]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I wouldn't say that the problems in South American are about who they are, or their race either. It is about they were not ready to handle democracy when the US put it on them. Saying that democracy is not for everybody, is not racist, it is the truth. Just like I said, monarchy is not for everyone, just like republicanism isn't for everyone, just like all forms of government. The world revolves in a dialectical pendulum movement. To reach C you have to go through B first, you can not go directly from A to C.

Nope people of all colors and credes can be ready for democracy. They just have to first reach B first.

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I haven't been called on anything. You all have sunk to beyond the levels I would put dogs on. According to St Agustus, you are about equal to a rock right now. How dare you resort to call people a rasist just to win an arguement. There is nothing in my statement that can be said to be rasist. Have a good day, hope you get banned.

Originally posted by Collegeboy
1DE. What was it the 2 Balkan war in 1992 or 3, where the two countries of Croatia and Serbia broke out into a war. Read the book TO End a War, you shall enjoy it.

As soon as they reach B, they deserve a chance to have what ever govenrment they want. But they need to first reach B.

As soon as they reach B, they deserve a chance to have what ever govenrment they want. But they need to first reach B.