18-08-2002 13:50									#91
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by rmsharpe Anyone that voted for Bush [in this poll] should have the American flag stapled to their butt and mailed to Baghdad.

Why? Do you deny the right of people who don't agree with you to hold their own opinions. This is the kind of one-eyed political bigotry that makes people hate the US.

	18-08-2002 13:56									#92
	Inflate your Upload Space

And this thread is the kind of idiotic troll-waiting-to-happen that makes people hate Apolyton.

	18-08-2002 14:47									#93
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Its threads like this that make 'Poly the place it is.

	18-08-2002 14:51									#94
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Spartak Does that mean I no longer need to put up with your overblown and childish debating style? Hurrah! Can someone quote this so Fez can see it?

Sure.

	19-08-2002 05:14									#95
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

join the club, spartak.

you really should have hammered away at his grammar.

	19-08-2002 05:42									#96
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Grammar? Too easy.

There's no shame on being on someone's ignore list (half the population of these forums is on mine). But getting yourself so angry that you have to ignore yourself - well, that's pretty sad.

	19-08-2002 08:51									#97
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Um... why not? It's true. If anyone thinks that the ruler of a pissant Mid East country has more influence on the stablity of the world than the President of the United States, you are on crack. And there is more than enough evidence that Saddam has been a stabilizing force in the ME. Without him, you would have Greater Iran and fundies having greater reign in the region.

No doubt Saddam is a stabalizing force: He keeps the Kurds in check, who if not "stabilized" would probably form their own independent state and destabalize Syria, Iran and Turkey in the process. He "stabalizes" the Shi'ites Arabs who probably would also like to have their own state and who would also like to liberate their fellow Shi'ites from Wahhabi repression in Saudi Arabia. His armies stand as a bulwark against Iranian fundamentalism overwhelming the Saudi fundamentalists. (Should we really care one way or the other?)

Saddam also helps finance terror in Palestine. As soon has he has terror weapons of his own, are we to really believe that Saddam will not use them on Israel - or give them to Palestinian terrorists or to al Qaida?

Saddam indeed is a stabalism force. I applaud your taste in stabalizers, Imran. You, of course, Imran, appear to prefer, as the United States has historically preferred, stability over justice, stablity over democracy, stability over liberty, and stability over true security.

Jimmy Carter once said that we should no longer support or condone dictatorships that brutalize their people in the name of stability. I second that motion.

Saddam must go.

	19-08-2002 09:24									#98
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: No doubt Saddam is a stabalizing force: He keeps the Kurds in check, who if not "stabilized" would probably form their own independent state and destabalize Syria, Iran and Turkey in the process

You, or anyone else, can't be positively sure that the establishment of a Kurdish state would foment what you just described. As a gambling man, I would wager that an invasion of Iraq would cause a hell of a lot more instability among surrounding countries whose power base is tenuous to begin with.

quote: Saddam also helps finance terror in Palestine. As soon has he has terror weapons of his own, are we to really believe that Saddam will not use them on Israel - or give them to Palestinian terrorists or to al Qaida?

The whole basis of your argument for supporting an invasion of Iraq has been that he already has the weapons you describe. If that's the case, why hasnt' he used them already? Why is the evidence that he has supported/ supplied terrorist factions scant to non-existent?

quote: Jimmy Carter once said that we should no longer support or condone dictatorships that brutalize their people in the name of stability. I second that motion.

I triple that notion. Unfortunately, the support of dictatorships that brutalize their people in the name of stability has been par for the course in asserting our interests across the globe. Saddam used to be a member of that Good Ole Boys club.

quote: Saddam must go.

There's a better way than sending 10's of thousands of our men into a clusterfu*k that's going to drain our collective soul for the next 10 - 20 years.

I am vehemently opposed to this upcoming war.

	19-08-2002 14:48									#99
	Inflate your Upload Space

Iraq could be America;s new Vietnam.

Face it Ned, Bush is a moron for pushing this through. Exactly how will American interests be served by adding to the instability in the middle east?

	19-08-2002 15:37									#100
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

DetroitDave, All we know about Saddam's WoMD is that he kicked the UN boys out four years ago. We apparently also have intelligence that he is developing WoMD, but does not have them yet.

You also seem to place a "stability" in very high regards. The whole region is unstable now. It is ruled by Dictators, be they called King, President or whatever. None of them are worth propping up any more.

Spartak, what we will get out of this is a pro-US, democratic Iraq that will "stabilize" the region in the right way. I have no idea how this could become a Vietnam. That "war" was never fought in the proper place. We should have invaded North Vietnam. The way we fought it we could not win and therefor had to eventually lose.

Nothing like that portend here.

	19-08-2002 16:51									#101
	Tired of ads?

wow

	19-08-2002 16:52									#102
	Tired of ads?

Now more seriously, the one thing we do know about Iraq right now is that the opposition to saddam is fragmented and unwilling to co-operate with each other.

What on earth makes you think that getting rid of Saddam is going to lead to a suddenly pro western enlightened government? More likely Iraq will end up getting through more governments that Italy, but in a more bloodthirsty manner. Compare with Afghanistan where at least a reasonably cohesive opposition to the Taliban existed in the Northern alliance - and frankly I wouldn't trust them further than I could throw 'em.

	19-08-2002 16:52									#103
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by paiktis22 wow

Why wow?

	19-08-2002 16:55									#104
	Full PM-box? Change here!

you got the cbeast with accuracy

	19-08-2002 20:54									#105
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Well Spartak, If all were to get is more of the same in terms of regimes, then removing Saddam's hand from a nuclear trigger (chemical or biological) is the only remaining reason to remove him. I personally don't think the prospects for democracy are so dim given what I have seen in the rank and file of the Palestininians who want real government and not more of the "old ways."

	20-08-2002 02:04									#106
	Tired of ads?

I can't see the logic of either argument. If saddam were going to press any button he would have done so by now and until convincing evidence that he has the capabiolity emerges (and I don't mean some **** and bull dreamt up by Mossad) I fail to see how the region would benefit from this action or how removing the last remaining Arab supporters of the Us would genuinely serve US long term interests?

And I don't think you can compare the Palestinians and thre Iraqis in any shape way or form. In case you hadn't noticed the Palestinians have the effects of a shared culture and race to fall back upon plus the experiance of the need to cooperate and work together that the diaspora created.

Sorry but your argument stinks worse than venom does.

	20-08-2002 02:25									#107
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Funny, I don't really see how "democracy" and "pro-American" are necessarily related...

I tend to think, for example, that if Saudi Arabia became truly democratic, it would become stunningly anti-American.

	20-08-2002 02:32									#108
	Get a bigger avatar today!

That's a very good point....

	20-08-2002 03:26									#109
	Got spare money?

Funny, I don't really see how "democracy" and "pro-American" are necessarily related...


Neither do I. I suspect any democratic Iraq would be anti-American as well, so the US will never allow a democratic Iraq. So I don't see why the US should kill thousands of Iraquis to replace one dictator with another.

	20-08-2002 03:51									#110
	Increase Your PM Length

Well it allowed a democratic Italy and Germany, and they are not supporting the US at the moment.

I agree with Ned (that's a first!) if the US stepped in and put a truely democratic regime in place in Iraq it would be an enourmous boost to the image of America and a great boon to it's long-term security.
By doing so the US would regain a lot of the respect it has lost since a similar effort in the 1940's and 1950's.
If such a regime, by it's very existance, led to the fall of repressive regimes in the rest of the gulf that would be a added bonus.
Sure the short to medium term economic consequences would be bad, but the west has been though things like this before and we would recover.
Moreover democracy would probably lead to a massive boom (one that would make the asian one look modest) in the middle-east 20-30 years down the road.

If you look at the long-term (a couple of decades) then the benefits would vastly outweigh the costs.

	20-08-2002 04:01									#111
	Increase the size of your Attachments

But isn't not going to happy., Interveening is just going to make matters worse. There is no happy ending waiting to happen.

	20-08-2002 07:15									#112
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by el freako Well it allowed a democratic Italy and Germany, and they are not supporting the US at the moment.

There's a huge difference between Italy/Germany post WWII and Iraq. For one thing, the western European states weren't vastly different from the US culturally, and they had traditions (albiet of varying lengths) of democracy prior to falling under dictatorial rule. For another, there weren't deep-rooted anti-American feelings across western Europe. Not to mention that post WWII Europe had the spectre of Soviet domination, whereas the big thing in the ME would be Islamic fundamentalism, which definitely isn't feared by the locals to the same degree that communism was feared by the west.

	20-08-2002 17:29									#113
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Kontiki There's a huge difference between Italy/Germany post WWII and Iraq. For one thing, the western European states weren't vastly different from the US culturally, and they had traditions (albiet of varying lengths) of democracy prior to falling under dictatorial rule. For another, there weren't deep-rooted anti-American feelings across western Europe. Not to mention that post WWII Europe had the spectre of Soviet domination, whereas the big thing in the ME would be Islamic fundamentalism, which definitely isn't feared by the locals to the same degree that communism was feared by the west.

All of these are semi-valid points except the last.
Communism was probably feared about as much in europe after the second world war as fundamentalist islam is in arabia now - i.e. mainly by those who have wealth and power.

However, democracy is not cultural-specific you know - just look at Japan, India, Spain and Botswana, they all have established democracies that followed no tradition of such a system.
I'm not saying it would be easy to put in place the institutions for a proper democractic society in a post-invasion Iraq (indeed it would probably entail a period of occupation lasting in years) but then nothing worthwhile is ever easy.

	20-08-2002 17:54									#114
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by el freako (indeed it would probably entail a period of occupation lasting in years)

A new vietnam for the new millenium.

Exactly shows why its not worth the effort.

	20-08-2002 18:12									#115
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I'm beginning to believe that continuance of democracy in the US depends on the suppression of democracy elsewhere in the world. An article in today's NY Times op-ed touches upon the same subject.

Even if a "truly democratic" regime were put in place in Iraq, it would be a mere shadow of a true democratic model. Any parties or leaders vieing for power would subject to the US "stamp of approval" before presenting themselves to the Iraqi electorate. What if the majority supported Islamic hardliners? Or another, albeit less malignant, dictator? Talking democracy is one thing. But if the product is not to our liking, do we force the Iraqi people to exchange it for another?

Dave

	20-08-2002 19:04									#116
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Spartak A new vietnam for the new millenium. Exactly shows why its not worth the effort.

Please name the outside nation that is looking to 'liberte' the people.



DetroitDave,

That's an extremely good point, and sadly it's happened before in Algeria.

	20-08-2002 19:36									#117
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

My point is exactly what DetroitDave said in his last post, and what I said in my first post. I'm not questioning whether or not you can have democracy in Iraq, I'm merely pointing out that a truly democratic system in Iraq (or just about any Arab state) is not necessarily going to be pro-American. In fact, there would be a good chance that it would be anti-American. DetroitDave hit it right on the head - the "democratic" Iraq the US envisions would really just be race between US approved leaders. This was also what I meant by criticizing the comparison between post-war Germany and Italy and Iraq. The US could be confident that such democracies would embrace western values, if not necessarily the US outright, but such may not be case in the ME.