3 ms·

It never cease to amaze me how blind are people in so-called democracies. People of Iraq were suffering exactly how under Saddam? Now many of them are dead be

It never cease to amaze me how blind are people in so-called democracies. People of Iraq were suffering exactly how under Saddam? Now many of them are dead because of the war. Infrastructure destroyed. Many people are suffering from ecological disaster (depleted uranium and toxic waste where us bases were located). And still there's no peace and no democracy. To everyone in the world outside the US is obvious that war was for the oil, not some mythical "democracy". And the life of people of Iraq had become much worse as the result.

leereeves 7y ago
> People of Iraq were suffering exactly how under Saddam? The answer to that question has its own Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein...
- coribuci 7y ago
  > > People of Iraq were suffering exactly how under Saddam? > The answer to that question has its own Wikipedia page: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein.... You think that now it is better ?
  - leereeves 7y ago
    I don't think living under a murderous dictator like Saddam was better.
- anticodon 7y ago
  BTW, without even discussing a credibility of this page, why it's never a problem when human rights violations happen in a countries that are allies of USA. The country can be a very strict dictatorship (Singapore) or violate human rights even more aggressively than Saddam Hussein ever did (UAE) - but it's never an issue. As long as the country economics decisions are dictated by USA (e.g. investing almost all country income in US treasuries and/or buying US weapons) - they can do whatever they want - up to dismembering people in their embassies - no problem, no shouts about human rights violations and lack of democracy that has to be immediately corrected by dropping bombs on their heads - because it's probably the most effective way to install "democracy".
  - leereeves 7y ago
    > The total number of deaths related to torture and murder during this period are unknown, but generally estimated to be around 250,000. Was there something comparable in Singapore or UAE? If so, I haven't heard about it. But we hear about human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia and Israel/Palestine all the time, so I don't think your claim that "it's never a problem when human rights violations happen in a countries that are allies of USA" is valid.
  - kortilla 7y ago
    “BTW, without even discussing the evidence you gave to the question on topic, I would like to respond with whataboutism because I don’t like the answer.”
    - anticodon 7y ago
      Regarding original question: it (and parent comments) assume that most of the population somehow "suffer" from the lack of "human rights" or "freedom of speech". I assure you it's not true. Democracy, human rights, freedom of speech are things that are very vaguely defined. It means that you can blame anyone arbitrarily for being insufficiently "democratic". This is what USA actually uses as a pretext to declare a war for resources. You can call any country "undemocratic" for some definition of "democracy". "Democracy", "freedom of speech", and other abstract concepts, doesn't affect the daily lives of 99.9% of population. Most people do not care: they wake up, have a breakfast, go to work, come home, have a dinner, go to bed. They do not really care what is exact way the president is elected (or not elected). They do not care about so-called "freedom of speech" because they aren't journalists or writers. On the other hand, when somebody drops bombs and rockets on you and your family, when infrastructure (schools, power lines, roads and other things) in your country are destroyed for tens of years, when there's anarchy and chaos around that causes huge rise of crimes, it makes a great difference to the everyday lives of the people. And that is what US/NATO really brought to people of Iraq, Libya and other countries.

leereeves 7y ago

> People of Iraq were suffering exactly how under Saddam? The answer to that question has its own Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein%27s_Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein...

coribuci 7y ago
> > People of Iraq were suffering exactly how under Saddam? > The answer to that question has its own Wikipedia page: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saddam_Hussein.... You think that now it is better ?
- leereeves 7y ago
  I don't think living under a murderous dictator like Saddam was better.
anticodon 7y ago
BTW, without even discussing a credibility of this page, why it's never a problem when human rights violations happen in a countries that are allies of USA. The country can be a very strict dictatorship (Singapore) or violate human rights even more aggressively than Saddam Hussein ever did (UAE) - but it's never an issue. As long as the country economics decisions are dictated by USA (e.g. investing almost all country income in US treasuries and/or buying US weapons) - they can do whatever they want - up to dismembering people in their embassies - no problem, no shouts about human rights violations and lack of democracy that has to be immediately corrected by dropping bombs on their heads - because it's probably the most effective way to install "democracy".
- leereeves 7y ago
  > The total number of deaths related to torture and murder during this period are unknown, but generally estimated to be around 250,000. Was there something comparable in Singapore or UAE? If so, I haven't heard about it. But we hear about human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia and Israel/Palestine all the time, so I don't think your claim that "it's never a problem when human rights violations happen in a countries that are allies of USA" is valid.
- kortilla 7y ago
  “BTW, without even discussing the evidence you gave to the question on topic, I would like to respond with whataboutism because I don’t like the answer.”
  - anticodon 7y ago
    Regarding original question: it (and parent comments) assume that most of the population somehow "suffer" from the lack of "human rights" or "freedom of speech". I assure you it's not true. Democracy, human rights, freedom of speech are things that are very vaguely defined. It means that you can blame anyone arbitrarily for being insufficiently "democratic". This is what USA actually uses as a pretext to declare a war for resources. You can call any country "undemocratic" for some definition of "democracy". "Democracy", "freedom of speech", and other abstract concepts, doesn't affect the daily lives of 99.9% of population. Most people do not care: they wake up, have a breakfast, go to work, come home, have a dinner, go to bed. They do not really care what is exact way the president is elected (or not elected). They do not care about so-called "freedom of speech" because they aren't journalists or writers. On the other hand, when somebody drops bombs and rockets on you and your family, when infrastructure (schools, power lines, roads and other things) in your country are destroyed for tens of years, when there's anarchy and chaos around that causes huge rise of crimes, it makes a great difference to the everyday lives of the people. And that is what US/NATO really brought to people of Iraq, Libya and other countries.