Mlk

[funkylyn]

and all because we got rid of the one strong man preventing it, Saddam Hussein.

.

You are bloody joking flecc arent you...... do you mean the same 'strong' man who was gassing his own people in the north of the country ???

Not that Ive really got the time to enter into a long drawn out discussion on it but the way that man treat his own people just makes my blood boil especially when you are referring to him as a strong man as if that was to be somehow applauded when we all know what sort of a despot he was..

Sorry....gotta go.....cheese scones in oven and nearly ready....back later lol

Lynda

 

[trex]

I don't think that flecc wants to keep SH. Often our politicians only look at the 'national interests', in other words, short term moves, no exit strategy. Hence the cure is worse than the disease. Conflicts are necessary, borders need redrawing now and then but one thing remains constant: big business wins everytime and I am fed up with it.
It may take another generation or two before the remaining two thirds of the world are lifted from starvation and ignorance, the two things that fuel conflicts.

 

[flecc]

You are bloody joking flecc arent you...... do you mean the same 'strong' man who was gassing his own people in the north of the country ???

Lynda

I'm not joking Lynda. Many nations are unsuited to democracy, and that is especially true of Islamic nations since Islam and democracy are not easily reconciled. In countries with serious potential internal problems like a mixed Sunni/Shia population, only a strong leader can prevent trouble. Saddam Hussein for the whole of his rule prevented any conflict between these two factions and also wouldn't allow Al Qaeda or any other terrorist faction to get a foothold.

The cost of a strong leader is harsh policy enforcement, but this is very short term so has one-time limited consequences. The cost of no strong leader in such countries is ongoing conflict and deaths that will total far more over time as Iraq has shown ever since the West's bungled interference and attempt to enforce democracy.

As for the wider issue of the gassing of the Kurds, Saddam as an Army officer learnt his military craft from Britain and no doubt was well aware of British history in his area. He knew that when we set the borders of the area in 1922 and the Kurds demonstrated against that, we ordered in the RAF to bomb them with mustard gas to stop their rebellion, their first bombing action post WW1. So when Saddam had the same trouble with the Kurds, he knew exactly what to do, he bombed them with mustard gas. Note, when he bombed the Kurds, our prior bombing was in living memory.

Our dishonest politicians either do not know that or attempt to hide it from us, but a few like me do know our history of British international criminality. We are not in a position to lecture on this subject.
.

 

[trex]

Many nations are unsuited to democracy, and that is especially true of Islamic nations since Islam and democracy are not easily reconciled.

Malaysia, the Maldives, Turkey are examples of Islamic democracies.

 

[KirstinS]

Malaysia, the Maldives, Turkey are examples of Islamic democracies.

True...... but all with pretty horrific human rights records

 

[flecc]

Malaysia, the Maldives, Turkey are examples of Islamic democracies.

Which either don't work or are currently failing. Malaysia is often ruled with a corrupt rod of iron by it's Prime Ministers and the current situation is far from satisfactory, read this article

Turkey is suffering long standing internal conflict between supporters of the Islamic party in power and the half of the country who do not support it, a position identical to that in Egypt currently, hardly a good democratic example.

And as for the Maldives, read on

 

[Morgann]

The darkest places in Hell are reserved for those who remain neutral in times of crisis.

Probably originally coined by someone who didn't want neutrals confusing his war effort.

 

[trex]

with most wars, there are no good guys.

 

[Morgann]

BTW. Dictators become dictators in order to hold on to power.

They hold onto power because they know that if they lose power, someone will come knocking on their door asking them to account for their actions and the actions of tens of thousands of their agents/troops/police in suppressing dissent... They've got a tiger by the tail.

When they take power they disrupt a lot of delicate lines of tradition, custom and obligation within the security forces which tend to keep the troops under control and they sever control of the military from the civil authority. Because the leaders have tenuous control of the army/police who are basically only agreeing to be led while they are being led where they wish to go, a lot of unpleasantness happens while local scores and racial/tribal enmities are being settled. These actions are not ordered by the leaders who basically just want a quiet life and lots of shoes/mistresses but they are the seeds for later suppression and the whole thing feeds on itself.

Oh, and it doesn't matter what religion you pick, priests with political power will always make themselves
obnoxious.

 

[tillson]

Many nations are unsuited to democracy, and that is especially true of Islamic nations since Islam and democracy are not easily reconciled.

This is very true and I have to smile when I remember that our idiot politicians think that the best way to sell democracy to an Islamic nation is to send a prince in a helicopter gunship to kill some of their shepherds.