Metal Reviews

On that note, it's often said by political scientists that institutionalized democracy is not the first step in creating a democracy. Rather, liberalism is. Democracy is essentially a tool, but it's a tool that will be misused without liberalism. Countries without it would be inclined to vote for fanatic fascist-religious parties and the like. So then, just how do you implement an entire ideology into a people -- that of liberalism? Well, it is not easy, that's for sure.

Germany and Japan are a couple of examples of such change. However, the situation was more exceptional for sure, and they had a lot to be guilty about, especially Germany. If Iraq had launched a full-scale attack on the US or whatever, I don't think people would be nearly as resentful of the present US domination in Iraq. However, it was America that struck, never Iraq. And while Saddam was a horrible leader, America's intrusion was violent, rude, disrespectful, arrogant, and too many Iraqis are bitter about it. And thus, unlike the German and Japanese cases, the Iraqis will not be inclined to submit to the American ideology.

So will Iraq ever adapt liberalism, and accordingly, a functional democracy? Maybe, but it will be a process long, long, long and painful.

maybe religion also contributes to this situation? extremists use faith, often the last thing people have, and twist it to their own interests, and it gets in the way of everything.

japan and germany were "guilty" but they didn't have any religious extremism fucking up the process, unlike in iraq now.

Ironically Saddam was the least religiously extreme dictator in the area.

The Sadam/Bush comparison is insane. Bush, like every single person in charge of an army at some point, of course is responsible for deaths indirectly.

Saying that he is a worse person and should be punished for it is like saying that someone who takes little chipmunks and ties them up in their basement, sodomizes the little creatures, and then cuts them to death, simply out of his unfounded hate for chipmunks, is just as horrible and deserves the same amount of punishment as a land contractor who moves in on their habitat and indirectly kills some of them.

Bush is not a good president, but comparing his evil deeds to sadam's is like comparing the CGI effects of star trek to star wars. How come none of you have said anything about FDR and Churchill from WWII? Think of all the European and Japanese homes/schools/hospitals they destroyed. Anyone think that they should have been hanged? Our president is not sadistic, he is just stupid and not cut out for his job at all. He is also lucky to have the dad that he does.

i never said Saddam himself imposed a fundamentalist religous regime.

but you can't deny that extremist muslims, iraqui or otherwise, are making the american invasion into an attack on islam.

I completely agree on this.

The major issue resides in the far-reaching consequences of the Bush Administration's actions; both geographically and chronologically. What this unprovoked invasion has done is forever destroying any hope of peace in the Middle East, and stirred up the hornets nest of murderous religious zealots (both Muslim and Christian) worldwide, whom themselves have absolutely nothing to do with the conflict. Indonesia is a perfect example of this.

While Saddam's atrocities are unforgivable, they at least were confined within the borders of his country and restricted to the duration of his regime. Bush's atrocities will be felt for generations to come. Under Saddam, Iraq may have been a dangerous place if you were not on the right god team, but at least it was stable. Now it is a fucking meat grinder, thanks to the removal of that stability. Which begs the question; does Iraq actually require a rigid dictator to keep the bickering sects in line and functioning within a coherent society? Well, I recall recently that Bush wanted to install such a dictator to replace the one he just deposed. So what was the point in this fucking massacre anyway then? I call it a massacre because I would hardly define it as a war.

They didn't start the war, and there was a reason for going to war.

OK, Saddam was an evil person, thank god the americans went there and removed him.

Now somebody please explain to me why the US didn't invade China to remove Mao Tse Tung or invade the USSR to remove Stalin. Those two are responsible for deaths by the MILLIONS of their countrymen. EACH.

Oil!

The plain and simple fact is, there's no going halfway morally. Either Bush is right, or he is wrong, and saying whether one dictator is worse/better than another is pointless. Anyone who is prepared to take human lives for such pointless reasons deserves all they get.

Despite that, fuck all those fundie shitheads who mocked Saddam as he stood under the gallows. Say what you will, the man was brave, and died a martyr's death.

Because that would have caused a nuclear apocalypse?

So it's only OK to remove a cruel dictator if he lives in a defenseless little poor country? And what can you say about Pinochet, who murdered thousands of Chileans and was put in office by US government, to stop comunism?

Face it, there is no pure evil just as there is no pure good. There is only interest. Since WWII, US interest. This time it was oil plus the fact that Saddam was used as an escape goat for Bush not finding Bin Laden and he needed something to prove the world that he is still "the man" after 911.

In the 60s ans 70s, stopping comunism was the interest. The US goverment installed several military dictators in Central and South America to stop comunism, thousands of people died. In Brazil, documents were recently discovered with proof that the US goverment was just about to help the brazilian military to overthrow our president in 64, but american help wasn't needed as Brazil's military did the job by themselves and our country lived a 21-year military dictatorship. Hundreds were murdered and exiled. So where were the so called "heroes and defenders of democracy and freedom"? Backing up the military dictatorship.

I am NOT an anti-american, by any means, Otherwise I wouldn't be typing in english right now, I wouldn't watch the Simpsons and Seinfeld, I wouldn't wear Nike shoes and I wouldn't listen to Slayer, Megadeth and other dozens of great US bands. I love some aspects of US culture and US people, but the US government speech throughout the last 50 years is filled with utter shit and hipocrisy.

Enough with hipocrisy and false speech. Why don't the US government just say "Look, we are in charge here and that's it. If you don't like what we want, too bad for you. We are coming. Just stay out of our interests and no one will be hurt. If you wanna fight, let's roll. We send our US Nimitz wherever you are and it's all over in a matter of months."

Bush sent this kind of message when he invaded Iraq. "The UN is against it? Our fake evidences didn't work? Fuck it, I'm invading and that's it."

For all the american buddies here, I say may your empire last as long as I live, for I prefer a world ruled by the US than a world ruled by the Chinese (which seems to be next world power in the next century I guess)

It's nice to see that at least one person around here knows how the world really works. Some of you seem to see everything in only black and white, when in reality the world is one giant grey area.

Far from it, you should know from my posting history that I certainly don't think policy in the Middle East has been "ok"! However, for someone that argues that "there is only interest", you take a surprisingly moralistic line above. We all know that invading Iraq was in American interests. How could invading the USSR and China have been, when those countries had weapons that could devastate the US?



As for the support given to Pinochet, the Taliban, the South Vietnamese, the Shah in Iran, the Contras in Nicaragua, and no doubt many more South American anti-democratic forces I'm sure you are better placed to name than me- Do you not think there is a huge difference between indirectly opposing communism through supporting its enemies globally, and a direct military assault on the heartland itself?



Well, sure. How much has this changed after the Cold War, especially given the leftwards direction taken democratically by many South American countries in recent years? Do you think the absence of a counterbalancing communist power has made America more relaxed about it, because there is no longer the same red threat? Or are they going to intervene even more, because there is much less threat of retaliation? There are incidents like the failed coup against Chavez in 2002, but are these isolated, or part of a general pattern? I would like to know what someone that actually lives in South America actually thinks about this, as I don't get to talk to many.



Me too, actually. But I would also prefer to live in a world were some countries don't need to be part of an empire at all. Seems like there are plenty of factors that make US power a stumbling block towards this.

Yeah World War II had something worth fighting and dying for at stake. The two conflicts are not comparable.

I am against the death penalty. They should have just imprison him for the rest of his days, working like a slave and rot like a bastard.

if i may ask; why let one country rule the world alone? anyway, to quote a danish stand-up comedian: " the american government say "... as leaders of the world, we..." - when did we vote for that?!?

Besides, when one country rule alone they tend to act out of own interest, and that's the way it always have been. It's only good if you happen to be a "friend", happen to share some of the same cultural elements and/or happen to share the same political view.

I checked my answering machine today: "Saddam here, sorry I couldn't make it to your New Year's party - I was terribly hungover from yesterday."

Hee hee hee.

lol, i got a text saying