Explain please

[BawA]

But wait, who are these so-called "Political Prisoners"?? Yep, that's right folks, they could be ANYONE who just happens to disagree with the Dictator...

not same thing, a man could just live with his life without getting himself in the political thing at saddams time so he wouldnt be killed but now the same guy living same life(minding his own life) can die for no reason altho in saddams time he needed a reason to be killed.
the only diffrence is that a man would die for some reason in saddams time but he doesnt need a reason now days.

[manker]

what u saw in tapes was in early age of saddams regim, i dislike saddam also but people life was much more better then what it is.
before saddam used to kill them now every forgin gun man kill them on daily bases. at age of saddam regim only political perisnors were murdered but now no matter who is who they would die.
which one is bettre?

Yay! Lets hear it for brutal dictatorships! After all, they only kill political prisoners, so that's OK.

But wait, who are these so-called "Political Prisoners"?? Yep, that's right folks, they could be ANYONE who just happens to disagree with the Dictator...



The difference is, the new Government of Iraq is not responsible for the killing. I'd much rather be part of a system with elections and the freedom to express your opinion, and I'd take my chances with that, rather than a totalitarian system.

Despite him being an advocate of suicide bombing. Bawa's got a point.

Who are WE to tell Iraqi people that they ought to live their life in a democracy. Bawa's also correct in that many of the atrocities happened years ago, in fact prior to the first Gulf War and were considered insufficiant to warrant regeime change at the time - remember Stormin' Norman being halted on the outskirts of Baghdad.


We have absolutely no right to impose our values on foreign cultures.

If Iraq was such a bad place to live in, then the people should be the ones to decide to alter things.

Not an American politician.

[Busyman]

Yay! Lets hear it for brutal dictatorships! After all, they only kill political prisoners, so that's OK.

But wait, who are these so-called "Political Prisoners"?? Yep, that's right folks, they could be ANYONE who just happens to disagree with the Dictator...



The difference is, the new Government of Iraq is not responsible for the killing. I'd much rather be part of a system with elections and the freedom to express your opinion, and I'd take my chances with that, rather than a totalitarian system.

Despite him being an advocate of suicide bombing. Bawa's got a point.

Who are WE to tell Iraqi people that they ought to live their life in a democracy. Bawa's also correct in that many of the atrocities happened years ago, in fact prior to the first Gulf War and were considered insufficiant to warrant regeime change at the time - remember Stormin' Norman being halted on the outskirts of Baghdad.


We have absolutely no right to impose our values on foreign cultures.

If Iraq was such a bad place to live in, then the people should be the ones to decide to alter things.

Not an American politician.

....or a British one.

[manker]

Despite him being an advocate of suicide bombing. Bawa's got a point.

Who are WE to tell Iraqi people that they ought to live their life in a democracy. Bawa's also correct in that many of the atrocities happened years ago, in fact prior to the first Gulf War and were considered insufficiant to warrant regeime change at the time - remember Stormin' Norman being halted on the outskirts of Baghdad.


We have absolutely no right to impose our values on foreign cultures.

If Iraq was such a bad place to live in, then the people should be the ones to decide to alter things.

Not an American politician.

....or a British one.

Like Blair decided anything.

[NikkiD]

Despite him being an advocate of suicide bombing. Bawa's got a point.

Who are WE to tell Iraqi people that they ought to live their life in a democracy. Bawa's also correct in that many of the atrocities happened years ago, in fact prior to the first Gulf War and were considered insufficiant to warrant regeime change at the time - remember Stormin' Norman being halted on the outskirts of Baghdad.


We have absolutely no right to impose our values on foreign cultures.

If Iraq was such a bad place to live in, then the people should be the ones to decide to alter things.

Not an American politician.

....or a British one.

That is a very good point. If a country asks for help from other governments that's one thing. But for a country, or in this case the coalition, to decide what's best for another country without that plea for help just doesn't sit right with me.

Who are we (western culture) to say that we have it right and that Iraq had it wrong? Sure, we feel that we have a better society, but then most people have a sense of pride in their way of life. That is something for the people of Iraq to decide, they have to live there, not us.

I'd much rather be part of a system with elections and the freedom to express your opinion, and I'd take my chances with that, rather than a totalitarian system.

I feel the same way. Is that the way Iraqi citizens feel?

[Barbarossa]

Despite him being an advocate of suicide bombing. Bawa's got a point.

Who are WE to tell Iraqi people that they ought to live their life in a democracy. Bawa's also correct in that many of the atrocities happened years ago, in fact prior to the first Gulf War and were considered insufficiant to warrant regeime change at the time - remember Stormin' Norman being halted on the outskirts of Baghdad.


We have absolutely no right to impose our values on foreign cultures.

If Iraq was such a bad place to live in, then the people should be the ones to decide to alter things.

Not an American politician.

I'm not naiively suggesting that the US and the UK thought they were going to invade Iraq to make things better for the people. That was just something that was said afterwards, to try and justify it.

The original so-called justification for the invasion was suspected WMD.

However, once they were in, regime-change happened, and there was then a power vacuum..

If they'd left the Iraqi's simply to get on with it after Saddam was ousted from power, there'd have been uproar in the International community. That vacuum had to be filled.

Now, you can fill this in a number of ways. e.g. an occupying army, a puppet dictator, governor, whatever, maybe even UN peacekeepers, anyway, rightly or wrongly, they decided to go for free democratic elections.

Now if the Iraqi's wanted to, they could vote in another dictator. That's the beauty of democracy.

It's simpler for the people to decide to alter things in a democracy, that in an autocracy.

[RioDeLeo]

Talking of democracy; Condo Rice was talking in Egypt a few weeks back, she ran down the Lebanese style of democracy, calling it undemocratic. She showed no understanding of how their system works, where each religious or ethnic group had guaranteed positions in the government. Even though the European observers declared the elections free and fair, she still felt the need to criticize.

The thing was, l have never heard her stand up and condemn China's government, not one word, China can do what they like as far as the US is concerned, including the execution and persecution of political opponents.

[yonki]

No1s gonna go to hell. Were all going to heaven, thats why Jesus died, to save us all. So it doesnt matter if you kill 1 or 100 people, well meet there.