Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

☖ Forums → Discussion Forum → So, oops, no wmds.
123
So, oops, no wmds.
2005-01-17, 10:38 AM #81
Quote:
Originally posted by Emon
It appears Mort has taken over Sine's role in stomping the arguments of stupid liberals on these forums.


Mort just doesn't have as much charisma as Sine though.
New! Fun removed by Vinny :[
2005-01-17, 10:41 AM #82
Quote:
Originally posted by Mort-Hog
I can, and I do.

Iraqis under Saddam Hussein were considerably better off than those in other countries in the Middle East, primarily because the Ba'ath party did not follow the Shari'a, or other aspects of fundementalist Islam. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a secular state.
This gave women rights that they would not have had (rights that they theoretically should have, under Islamic law, but tend not to have in practise).

There was no legislation against homosexuality. In neighbouring countries, it would be illegal and sometimes a capital crime. The Ba'ath party simply didn't care about it. This position is probably the most useful of all.

Being a pseudo-socialist state, Iraqis had the benefit of excellent social services, health care and education. Oil money was (mostly) going towards social services, not extraordinarily wealthy corporations. In the 60s and 70s, Saddam Hussein's Iraq had the best standard of living in the Middle East (and that includes Turkey and Egypt). Iraq's economy took a serious blow after the Iraq-Iran war, and it went somewhat downhill from there.

But it was nowhere near the chaos and mess that Iraq is today. Even after the elections, the government is unlikely to be able to sort out the country, and it is even more unlikely that Iraq will retain the standard of life under Saddam Hussein. They might not have liked him, but he did a lot of good for Iraq. The elected government is far more likely to adopt a fundementalist Islamic stance, as that's an easy way to win cheap support, despite all the benefits of a secular state.

Some countries require authoritarian rule, because of the nature of the country, and Iraq is one of those countries.



Yes. Independant sources estimate 10 000 to 30 000, with one study putting it at 100 000 (which seems a bit much). But it's certainly more than 5000.


Sounds like Iraq was even better than Canada before the war! Wow we really screwed up let's kick Bush out of office, impeach him for sucking lolololol
New! Fun removed by Vinny :[
2005-01-17, 10:49 AM #83
Quote:
Originally posted by oSiRiS
Mort just doesn't have as much charisma as Sine though.


He does in my opinion. Probably more.
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2005-01-17, 10:53 AM #84
I vote we install Mort-Hog as the new ruler of Iraq... :rolleyes: ...and see what happens. He seems to know all there is to know about the country.
The man in black fled across the desert, and the Gunslinger followed...
2005-01-17, 12:11 PM #85
Quote:
Originally posted by LonelyDagger
I blame George senior for being such a wuss and not taking care of it the first time around.


"Trying to eliminate Saddam .. would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ...there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

-Former President George Bush
2005-01-17, 12:14 PM #86
Quote:
Originally posted by Nightwind
I vote we install Mort-Hog as the new ruler of Iraq... :rolleyes: ...and see what happens. He seems to know all there is to know about the country.


I would just like to see some sources come from him.
2005-01-17, 12:35 PM #87
Quote:
Originally posted by Wuss
"Trying to eliminate Saddam .. would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ...there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

-Former President George Bush


Bush Sr. May have been a jerk, but he was one smart cookie. What he described there is ecactly what has transpired under his son.
"it is time to get a credit card to complete my financial independance" — Tibby, Aug. 2009
2005-01-17, 1:09 PM #88
Quote:
Originally posted by oSiRiS
Mort just doesn't have as much charisma as Sine though.

More positive charisma, but not nearly as funny.
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2005-01-17, 2:05 PM #89
Quote:
Originally posted by Nightwind
I vote we install Mort-Hog as the new ruler of Iraq... :rolleyes: ...and see what happens. He seems to know all there is to know about the country.


I vote you president of the United States of America!

I'm sure most Americans would agree, seeing as in the last election they prooved they typically side with those will little apprication for accumulating knowledge.
former entrepreneur
2005-01-17, 2:59 PM #90
Quote:
Originally posted by Morfildor
I would just like to see some sources come from him.


Ditto.
The man in black fled across the desert, and the Gunslinger followed...
2005-01-17, 3:29 PM #91
Quote:
Originally posted by Wuss
"Trying to eliminate Saddam .. would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ...there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."

-Former President George Bush


That's BS. What about the part where Iraqi's are left feeling betrayed and the fact that Saddam had invaded another country at that time and yet they left him in power? It doesn't matter what he though if he was wrong, and he was wrong. It would have been much easier the first time around.
You...................................
.................................................. ........
.................................................. ....rock!
123

↑ Up to the top!