Combatants before 1778: Armies, militias, and mercenaries: Colonists were divided over which side to support in the war; in some areas, the struggle was a civil war.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War You need to read responses before you post. I already explained I could jettison this whole comparison and it wouldn't matter - but that you're misunderstanding its application. The application is that people will risk death to be free of a despot. We're wasting time on a bbs arguing, man. I've got a pretty good idea how significant my opinions are - . I'm not sure what this is in response to - but there is not doubt we removed the tyranny of Saddam. That's pretty much indisputable. Again, read the thread. Hundreds of thousands were dying before the intervention - I doubt they would have wanted a continuation of the status quo.
So was Stalin - that doesn't mean his apparatus was natural nor that it wasn't an impediment to self determination. Being home grown doesn't have anything to do with it. WAIT - CALM DOWN GLYNCH. I am not comparing what Stalin did to what Saddam did. (I bet he's already typing)...
even the link is entitled American Revolutionary War.. so some areas had a sort of civil war between themselves.. but that does not seem a war against the redcoats.. but amongst themselves on who to support.. American Revolutionary War definitely not a civil war as what you assume in your question. Is that specific enough proof the your question is flawed to begin with? your question is a fraud at best because you first try falsely to compare iraq war right now to american revolution in order for people to agree with you..
Exactly. And they didn't risk death. That was my point. America risked death of its civilians on behalf on the Iraqi's. btw, the link you posted doesn't call it a civil war ...it calls it a revolution for independance from England. But you said that isn't importanty anyway, probably because you knew you were wrong. It isn't indisputable. Genocide was ongoing in Darfur. If America was so worried about removing a genocidal government, it would have fouced its efforts elsewhere. If the tyranny in Iraq was so bad, the people would have risen up. But there is no evidence of that for over a decade. America even told the Iraqi people that if YOU rise up, we will support you. But the people did not rise up. Those "hundreds of thousands" died 20 years earlier. Prior to our intervention, Iraq was relatively stable.
Hayes, I think you value American lives above those of the international community. Even to suggest that “let em kill each other and resolve it for themselves” theory is preposterous. The U.S went in there to liberate the people, now you want them to fight each other because U.S money and lives are at stake? The U.S made (helped) Saddam to become too powerful to overthrow, thus making them the reason for Iraq not being able to solve their own problems. Now you want to leave them alone to solve their problems because it’s costing you too much. Sorry, but once you put your foot in the door and become part of the problem you don’t step out until that problem is resolved (IMHO).
Looks like Hayes has been exposed countless times in this thread He'll probably continue to make the issue more and more obscure so he can keep on 'arguing' Maybe he should join the military or go get involved in a civil war himself so he can have some first hand knowledge instead of random speculation and ridiculous comparisons
Why are you interchanging Saddam's tyranny with Saddam's genocide. It is indisputable that we removed Saddam's tyranny. Before intervention: Saddam is a tyrant. After intervention: Saddam is not a tyrant. That is indisputable. As I said previously this a terribly incorrect assumption on many levels - you mistake the willingness to overthrown saddam with the capability to do so. No. The deaths from the Shiite uprising was ten years earlier, not 20. No, i'm talking about the deaths from sanctions. No, when one third of the country is in open revolt, I don't think that meets a reasonable standard of 'stable.' You make a lot of assertions about my position that are incorrect. I never said anything about wanting to abandon Iraq, much less abandoning them because of the costs. I am merely asking posters to speculate whether or not a civil war, if that were to happen - would be worse than living under a despot.
The comment was about being "artificial." Sadaam came into power from within. = not artificial. America intervened to remove the government. = artificial. History is generally forgiving when a nation reaches its own fate but not so forgiving when other countries intervene. Are decedants from slaves better off now that they are in America? Is India better off since the British intervened there? Who freaking cares? The Brits misbehaved to begin with so any subsequent conversation about being better off is negated. Nobody gives England credit for bringing slaves to America! Just as nobody will give America credit if Iraq suddenly makes a turn for the better.
want to test your theory? try one of these http://videogames.yahoo.com/browsegames_genre?platform=4&genre=15&page=0&filter=A&sort=pop but no real blood, death, injury, and sorrow so I'm not sure you'll enjoy it..
Well, dammit. I'm the one that used the phrase so I think I know what it means! Saddam was not a result of self determination in Iraq. I think we can agree he was an impediment to that, right? Certainly no one claims the Shiites or the Kurds wanted him as their leader or that he was a democratic leader. Rather he was a despot, a tyrant, a block stopping self determination. All this inside/outside stuff is just you running in circles with no point. I will.
So....you want me to buy a video game? Sorry, I don't get it. Yep, I luuuuuuuuuuuuuuv blood, death, injury, and sorrow. Stop being stupid. If you want to engage in discussion, fine. Otherwise don't waste the space and time.
Hayes I must commend you for massaging this thread into eight pages (thus far) by posing a question that cannot be answered. I think the next eight pages should examine the real meaning (if such a thing exists, obviously) of "better". Ooh - or we could examine this: General statement: civil war/revolution historically has fostered great production in the arts. Question: assuming Iraq follows this trend and new artistic production springs up, is this post civil war atmosphere better than having museums with artistic production from the very birth of civilization (mutually exclusive since the pre civil war invasion led to the destruction/loss of a great number of it)?
Hayes: The only reason you would want a civil war is because right now this war is costing a sh*t load of money. Let’s not lie to ourselves; this war is having a bad impact on the economy of the U.S. So I THINK you brought about this topic because you know it would be the quick fix. (okay maybe not quick) Don't you agree that civil war would be the easy fix? won't cost money or lives(u.s)?
you're too smart not to get it.. if you want to play with peoples lives, do it in a video game.. isn't this what this thread is all about, after the the US's flawed and failed war of invasion on Iraq, as if all the blood, death, injury, and sorrow is not enough they need another war - a civil war.. isn't that fun?
Oh man, where did I say I wanted a civil war? You haven't been around long but for some background I've proposed spending billions on a missle defense system that may never work, unhindered space exploration, and a myriad of other projects. Saving money is not on the top of my list.
