Singapore's Involvement in Iraq: More that We Can Do? replied by rover789 @ Mon, 14 Jul 2008 01:30:26 +0800

rover789 — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 01:30:26 +0800

The coalition forces know that killing civilians indiscriminately cannot win the hearts and minds of the people. I don't think it's deliberate.

I agree. They might not have handled the war well, but I also do not think they meant to do any harm to Iraqi civilians. I don't see these people entering the war, rubbing their hands together with glee, laughing at the very thought of destroying the country. These soldiers too are human.

So no..I'm not suggesting these actions were pre-meditated and deliberate. But when pushed into a war zone, I guess it's just too easy for one's moral values to just go out of the window in an instant. When you're stuck in a place not governed by any rules and laws, when the people around you, your buddies and closest mates are constantly getting wounded or killed by insurgents, IEDs, mortars and god knows what, I think you too would be very susceptible to disregard your own moral obligations.

You start firing at every object or person you deem suspicious. You take orders from the higher ups without really questioning its viability or legality. (Which, sadly, led to the prosecution of countless American interrogation specialists who claimed they believed the techniques they used were legal and not breaking the rules of the Geneva Convention, who were given IROEs signed by Donald Rumsfeld himself stating the techniques were A-OK.) There is so much gray area a soldier has to deal with in a war zone, he can't possibly always make the right choice. Then again, that also cannot be used to justify his wrongful deeds if he committed any. So much gray area.

I'm not supporting what they did, neither am I condemning them blatantly.. I'm just trying to understand what could've pushed them to do certain things. What exactly could they have experienced that would make some of them go to the extreme, for so many innocent Iraqi civilians and coalition soldiers alike to die in a short span of time.

Again, I've mentioned that the Fallujah seige is one sad example we can study to understand the many things that could've gone wrong; whether it is a U.S marine sniper who pulled that trigger and killed a child without knowing it, or an insurgent blowing up a Humvee and murdering a dozen young soldiers, these people are all fighting for their lives.

And we have to understand that; understand, but not impose any unnecessary, baseless judgments on them without full comprehension of their actions, their beliefs and culture, their religion, and most importantly, their circumstance.

We live in Singapore, a relatively safe, multicultural country. Our circumstance has no doubt shaped who you've become and what you believe in -- so in order to understand people from another part of the world with extremely contrasting circumstances, we'll have to do more than just look at facts. You can't keep insisting U.S hegemony is the only fault of the Iraq War, that U.S is a totally evil, propagandistic, opportunistic empire interested only in undermining other countries, or (as examples) that the Israelites are inexplicably planning on the total destruction of the Palestinian community, or that Muslims everywhere are hell-bent on global domination. There is a context for each circumstance. A single event, group or individual rarely, if ever, unequivocally represents the beliefs of the people embroiled directly or indirectly in that conflict. And we must damn well understand these contexts first before judging. Put yourself in their circumstance and beliefs, if you will.

Which, in this case, if you really want to make a strong case of Islam as a religion being the root of the problem, as to the main reason for causing Al-Qaeda to chase after the need for global Islamic domination as some believe, you'd have to read and understand their holy book, the Qur'an. And why should one go through all that unnecessary trouble? Because these radicals are using just that one main source (besides the hadith and occasional fatwas) to justify themselves and their actions. You've seen them hold their Qur'ans high up in the air, evoking its phrases and words while they try to convince you their actions are wholly justified and morally acceptable within Islamic boundaries. So you'll have to go by their rules before you judge them from one's moral high horse.

What exactly made otherwise moderate, non-violent Iraqis turn to radical ideaologies, to join al-Sadr's army, to join Al-Qaeda, to join the respective Sunni or Shi'ite groups who proclaim that the other one has no right to exist? There's a whole host of reasons why. We may not be aware of all of 'em.

To me, (for now, anyway, unless someone is able to peacefully convince me otherwise), I tend to believe that Iraqis turn to these groups to defend themselves against factors hostile to them, such as the coalition forces, (for example) if you are Sunni, prosecution from Shi'te groups, Kurdish rebels, the Mehdi army, infighting and so on.

I mean, think about it. If you're fighting for the lives of your families and those around you in a war zone where time is of essence, it is often hard to make the right moral decisions. Sometimes, what is right or wrong, what makes sense and what does not, blends together to make it all more confusing. I think it is not so much that Iraqis in resistance groups turn violent because of the nature of the religion, just as it is not so much that these Iraqis could fully comprehend the interpretation of "jihad" that these groups offer, such as the definitions of lesser and greater jihad, and the moral backlash that might come about by joining these groups. They're in a war zone, they need security and comfort in knowing they belong somewhere, and these groups offer a semblance of that. So they jump on board. After all, most of them are thinking that they are fighting for the preservation of their country and religion from hostile forces. This is post-invasion Iraq, battered repeatedly by coalition forces after suffering many years of genocidal sanctions and unjust prosection by Saddam Hussein, and not Al-Qaeda or Taleban in Afghanistan or Pakistan (wherever they are now) where their religious and political beliefs can be used to explain their actions.

Anyway..once again, people, before I go off-topic again...I believe the point of this thread is to discuss what Singapore and her normal, everyday, working civilians can do to help rebuild the lives of the people from Iraq. I'm not looking for finger-pointing, as to who must be blamed for the war, or what the U.S did, or about Islamic global domination being the main goal of fundamentalists. You can have your own thread for that. This thread should be neutral on these issues...I hope I'm clear on that, folks.

Singapore's Involvement in Iraq: More that We Can Do? replied by googoomuck @ Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:25:37 +0800

googoomuck — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:25:37 +0800

Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:

Why you easily hoodwinked by USA propaganda?

What a peace-loving and inspiring message.

Singapore's Involvement in Iraq: More that We Can Do? replied by Poh Ah Pak @ Sun, 13 Jul 2008 11:46:36 +0800

Poh Ah Pak — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 11:46:36 +0800

These fundamentalists are here to dominate the world.

Why you easily hoodwinked by USA propaganda?

Singapore's Involvement in Iraq: More that We Can Do? replied by googoomuck @ Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:28:01 +0800

googoomuck — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:28:01 +0800

If these insugents who hailed from at least 27 countries did not live and fight among the civilians or shoot from mosques, many unpleasant public outcries could have been prevented.

These insurgents used unconventional warfare whose objective is to cause weariness and to curtail the standard of living, to instill fear and to disintegrate the morale of the civilians.

They also use the 'war of attrition' tactic to wear down the coalition forces.

The US soldiers have families and also wish to end the war quickly and go home.

The coalition forces know that killing civilians indiscriminately cannot win the hearts and minds of the people. I don't think it's deliberate.

One thing to note:Farllujah has the greatest number of supporters of Saddam - his cronies live there.

But it was strange that pro-American Arabs were elected as town council members by the people of FaLLUJAH, leading the US to think incorrectly that the city would not become a hotbed of insurgent activities.

Singapore's Involvement in Iraq: More that We Can Do? replied by rover789 @ Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:38:13 +0800

rover789 — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 18:38:13 +0800

About stupidissmart's comment:

Yes...I guess what I'm trying to bring forward is how we can at least try and extend help to Iraqi civilians, and help 'em build their lives back together, one step at a time, even if it would take decades to do so. The question of whether the U.S and coalition forces did the right thing, whether so-and-so must be blamed for causing so-on-and-so-on...that has nothing to do with our capabilities and our desire (if you do have it) in helping Iraqis regain their lives back.

Yeah..one of the main problems is its bloody sectarian war. Partly caused by historical grievances, worsened further by the U.S-led invasion. Getting money and aid to them would be one helluva job to accomplish, when the insurgents and resistance groups are perceiving every foreign entity as a threat.

I think changing their idealogies (radical or not) would be difficult at this point...the Shi'ites, Sunnis, Kurdish populations, al-Sadr's Mehdi "army," the radicals...they've suffered too much with one another to be coerced any further. Maybe they still can, god knows. I still hope that one day all these people would learn how to co-exist with another despite all those grievances. A fantasy, I know, but hopefully.

I don't know, possibly giving these different sects their own states could be considered. Many people are debating between a one-state vs two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. Kurdistan is slowly emerging in northern Iraq. It should be considered. Maybe they should just put down their damn weapons and start negotiating. If not their own states, then in a unified Iraq, they should ensure their own sect gets equal representation in the IGC, and decide exactly how they are going to divide their oil (let's not forget the Sunni-dominated areas in Iraq are oil-poor).

I believe that if any of this is to be achieved, U.S forces should pull out of Iraq. They mishandled the occupation. Their time is over. Maybe not immediately, but gradually, and without any conditions. Get a ringside seat and start using other avenues other than military force to negotiate and compromise. It's gonna be a long road, but who knows. The Iraqis have experienced too much under the occupation to give a damn about whatever goodwill the U.S forces are planning to do next.

Also, one of things that must be understood is that a lot of the so-called "insurgents" in Iraq are just normal Iraqis resisting the occupation. When the U.S invaded the country, Al-Qaeda's presence was minimal at best. Till now, there hasn't been solid proof that Saddam was affiliated with Al-Qaeda. That was the U.S's way of selling the war.

Most Iraqis who had suffered under Saddam were no doubt happy when he was deposed. They waited eagerly to see what the U.S would do after that. But since the Bush admin mishandled everything soon after Saddam was caught, it comes as no surprise that these normal Iraqis too have taken up arms to defend themselves. If you recall, the Fallujah siege in 2004 was the worst-case scenario. Lots of innocent women, children and the elderly were killed when they tried to flee the city. The coalition forces stormed the local hospitals, killing people whom they thought were "insurgents." The International Red Cross and medical aid were denied entry into the city. And let's not get started on the indiscriminate sniper fire.

These things...do you think even normal Iraqis won't be mad over these unjust killings? So they take up arms, form resistance groups, some of them get radicalised by al-Sadr's men, some join opportunistic Al-Qaeda branches in the country, and there you have it. "Insurgents" attacking coalition forces. Iraq's problem now is not so much about Islamic fundamentalism...it's more towards what others did that made them go towards that direction. We have to find a way to reconcile what the Iraq War did to them.

Singapore's Involvement in Iraq: More that We Can Do? replied by googoomuck @ Sat, 12 Jul 2008 17:40:45 +0800

googoomuck — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 17:40:45 +0800

The Islamic fundamentalists and their supporters are incapable of satisfaction and are unappeasable, the US govt must have learnt after her experience in the Soviet- Afghan war and the Serbia- Kosovo war.

The Russians support Serbia because of her experience in Chechnya.

If Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines can be in their list of targets, their agenda is quite clear.

These fundamentalists are here to dominate the world.

Singapore's Involvement in Iraq: More that We Can Do? replied by foxtrout8 @ Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:51:46 +0800

foxtrout8 — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:51:46 +0800

Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:

Read up on events leading up to USA invasion of Iraq.

Many many people were saying that it was all a fraud.

But they lacked the propaganda power to propagate their message.

Leading up to any event, many people will say and believe alot of things.

I think it is logical then to be convinced by the strongest and deemed most well informed which is the american's in this issue at that point of time with so much smoke around.

Of course after the war, there were evidence and hard intelligence to prove that bush was wrong but it was too late. There were also sources within the US intelligence community to prove that the war is a fraud but onli surface to great use after the war making the war even more tragic.

Singapore's Involvement in Iraq: More that We Can Do? replied by Poh Ah Pak @ Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:08:35 +0800

Poh Ah Pak — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:08:35 +0800

when saddam was late in opening up his facilities for UN inspection is practically too convincing for alot of people to doubt the americans.

Read up on events leading up to USA invasion of Iraq.

Many many people were saying that it was all a fraud.

But they lacked the propaganda power to propagate their message.

Singapore's Involvement in Iraq: More that We Can Do? replied by foxtrout8 @ Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:02:55 +0800

foxtrout8 — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:02:55 +0800

Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:

Help can but don't associate with USA occupation, which is illegal.

A number of countries were fooled by the American's claim about the WMD and thus supported the war.

You cant realli blame us or any of the country because the Americans with their top notch intelligence agencies coupled with the huge doubt created when saddam was late in opening up his facilities for UN inspection is practically too convincing for alot of people to doubt the americans.

We have to associate with the Americans in the reconstruction effort because of 2 important factors. Very importantly, they are the chief in this reconstruction effort providing the main source of soldiers, contractors and funds as well as drafting up the main framework for progress thus we (like any other nation) got to work with them. The second reason is, I believe some of our deployments are a result of them asking us for help ( i know the SPF deployment were the result of a official request from US).

Singapore's Involvement in Iraq: More that We Can Do? replied by Poh Ah Pak @ Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:57:33 +0800

Poh Ah Pak — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:57:33 +0800

Helping Iraq now in their construction is helping the victims of the unjust war.

Help can but don't associate with USA occupation, which is illegal.

Singapore's Involvement in Iraq: More that We Can Do? replied by foxtrout8 @ Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:55:39 +0800

foxtrout8 — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:55:39 +0800

Originally posted by Atobe:

Singapore has contributed to the rebuilding of Iraq by offering the new LST vessels to guard the Iraqi oil terminal; air-tankers to provide air-to-air inflight refuelling of Allied planes; and Singapore police personnel to train the Iraqi police force in Jordan.

Our C-130s were also involved in 2 deployments.

Singapore's Involvement in Iraq: More that We Can Do? replied by foxtrout8 @ Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:36:16 +0800

foxtrout8 — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 13:36:16 +0800

Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:

That is not my point.

My point is that Singapore should not be involved in this naked aggressive and illegal war waged by USA for dubious motives.

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/

http://www.democracynow.org/2005/3/21/

The wrongful invasion of iraq is over. Whatever is the reason behind the american's aggressiveness got nothing to do with the need to help the Iraqis rebuild themselve and stand up on their own feet.

Yes, our resources over at iraq are just an extension of our foreign policy toward the americans but looking at the other side of our coin, our effort there nevertheless benefit the Iraqis more than it benefit anyone else..

Let mi tell u more about Al basra. Al Basra which is slightly inland has a number of ship yard as well as oil storage area along a canal. Al Basra holds about 80% of the Iraqi's oil supply. The shipping route to Al Basra is along a canal (or a river if u want to call) so that means any attack using the water way must use the canal. That makes defending the river banks and the mouth of the canal at the arabian gulf important. There are also off shore stations at the arabian gulf link via pipeline to Al Basra. These off shore stations must be protected too.

Very little information is given about RSN operation there but we know that they were given the task to provide security over some oil terminals at the Arabian gulf. It may sound very trival but our LST inwhich a number of our resources were held were most possibly be there to protect the very important assets mentioned above.

The Iraqis need room to grow and i think countries (not onli Singapore) should chip in and help out in that aspect. We all know that it is wrong to initial the war in Iraq, condemning the aggressor is one thing, helping the victims of the aggressor is another. Helping Iraq now in their construction is helping the victims of the unjust war.

Singapore's Involvement in Iraq: More that We Can Do? replied by Poh Ah Pak @ Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:42:01 +0800

Poh Ah Pak — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:42:01 +0800

Ex-White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan Speaks Out on the Bush Admin Lies and Media Allies that Led the US to War

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/11/former_white_house_former_white_house

Singapore's Involvement in Iraq: More that We Can Do? replied by stupidissmart @ Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:30:38 +0800

stupidissmart — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:30:38 +0800

sorry i am talking to the thread starter

Singapore's Involvement in Iraq: More that We Can Do? replied by Poh Ah Pak @ Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:29:12 +0800

Poh Ah Pak — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:29:12 +0800

Wel... it is good for u to think of helping the iraqis build back their lives after the war which is your main focus of the thread (If I get wat u r saying)

That is not my point.

My point is that Singapore should not be involved in this naked aggressive and illegal war waged by USA for dubious motives.

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/

http://www.democracynow.org/2005/3/21/

Singapore's Involvement in Iraq: More that We Can Do? replied by stupidissmart @ Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:07:27 +0800

stupidissmart — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 12:07:27 +0800

Wel... it is good for u to think of helping the iraqis build back their lives after the war which is your main focus of the thread (If I get wat u r saying)

Is just tat their main problem now is internal conflict... they do not face a problem when money can solved the situation but a problem about ideology and religion between the different sectors of people. The only way to help them is to change their ideology and religion substantially to be able to coexist with one another. How can we do tat ?

Singapore's Involvement in Iraq: More that We Can Do? replied by Poh Ah Pak @ Sat, 12 Jul 2008 11:53:55 +0800

Poh Ah Pak — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 11:53:55 +0800

But when the country in question is handled by someone such as Saddam..that debate could go on for centuries.

USA invasion of Iraq is motivated by USA political strategies of global hegemony, secure oil etc.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with Saddam's regime.

You understand or not?

That is only a propaganda device to sell and market the war.

Brainwash people to support them to kill and invade.

You understand or not?

Want to liberate, can invade Israel and liberate Palestinians.

Singapore's Involvement in Iraq: More that We Can Do? replied by Poh Ah Pak @ Sat, 12 Jul 2008 11:45:33 +0800

Poh Ah Pak — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 11:45:33 +0800

Although countries like China supported the US but it did not do it out right during the Security Council resolution vote.

China support USA invasion of Iraq?

Evidence of that support?

China hands are equally bloody in this war and we shall see more of it.

Produce evidence.

So lets not stand on some perceived moral high ground.

So you support hostile aggressive wars based on lies and for securing oil?

USA come and invade Singapore, say that we have weapons of mass destruction you support lah.

Is it?

Singapore's Involvement in Iraq: More that We Can Do? replied by Atobe @ Sat, 12 Jul 2008 06:34:46 +0800

Atobe — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 06:34:46 +0800

It is unfortunate that a cowboy in George Bush happened to land himself a seat that is far too big for his small butt.

The moment he stepped into the Presidency, Saddam Hussein was already a target from Day 1 - as Saddam continued to thumb his nose at the Bush family after the first Iraqi war when Kuwait was liberated.

It was a mistake for Saddam to make it personal by stating the obvious that he will be around by the time George Bush {the Father} stepped down from a one term presidency.

WMD was Saddam's own mistake for attempting to scare the US from attempting to invade Iraq, and it was a bad move to begin with, and even a more messy policy being implemented in climbing down from the hype that Saddam created.

The 9-11 attack by Al-Qaeda on the US World Trade Center, created the heaven sent opportunity to Dick Cheney and George Bush Jr to put their plan into motion - to get rid of Saddam Hussein.

It was unfortunate for the USA to have a George Bush - deluded at being a big guy with a big 6-shooter piece - strutting around with the help of a scheming Dick Cheney.

A deluded clown on the hot seat and managed by a scheming planner - will spell disaster.

If the focus had remained in the chase to hunt down Osama bin Laden, and not dilute their resources unnecessarily towards Iraq and Saddam Hussein, perhaps Osama would have been captured.

With its resources depleted and stretched thin, the US has now allowed Iran the opportunity to thumb their nose at USA, and ignore all the pleas and good advise from the World Communities to abandon their nuclear weapons program.

Singapore has contributed to the rebuilding of Iraq by offering the new LST vessels to guard the Iraqi oil terminal; air-tankers to provide air-to-air inflight refuelling of Allied planes; and Singapore police personnel to train the Iraqi police force in Jordan.

So far no SAF ground troops are in any direct line of fire - at least none of our NSF are on the ground, but we will never know if the highly secretive SAF Special Forces have joined the US or co-alition forces to the same.

Singapore's Involvement in Iraq: More that We Can Do? replied by Arapahoe @ Sat, 12 Jul 2008 04:37:44 +0800

Arapahoe — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 04:37:44 +0800

I think we can debate the geopolitical impact on whether it was a prudent move for SG govt direct support the war. And its impact on our foreign policy because since we demonstrate our political Will to assert our decision on Islamic fundamentalist and WMD, SG simply made its first move and take position with the US. We had inadvertently opened ourselves venerable to restricting our political space within the region together with the US fallout in Iraq.

SG biggest involvement was to help draft resolution 1441 and got it pass, and be part of the coalition. Although countries like China supported the US but it did not do it out right during the Security Council resolution vote.

Only enclosed minded person would continue to sing the hegemony song. China hands are equally bloody in this war and we shall see more of it. So lets not stand on some perceived moral high ground.

Singapore's Involvement in Iraq: More that We Can Do? replied by rover789 @ Sat, 12 Jul 2008 03:37:39 +0800

rover789 — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 03:37:39 +0800

If I may...just a comment on Meat Pao's post.

You made a good point... whether countries should or should not take things into their own hands and force changes onto another country's regime as they see fit makes for good debate fodder. We can argue both ways and come up with compelling reasons as to why our stand should hold. But when the country in question is handled by someone such as Saddam..that debate could go on for centuries.

Anyway, Saddam did invade a country -- Kuwait, in the early 1990s. And the UN demanded the Iraqi Army's full withdrawal, with the U.S leading a coalition of more than 500,000 to oppose that invasion. The fact that Saddam's toppling occurred more than 10 years later shouldn't diminish what he did in Kuwait. The Iran-Iraq war is another example of what Saddam could attempt to do if he wanted to.

Also, let's not forget the massive genocidal campaign Saddam launched in the 1990s, killing thousands of innocent Shi'ites and Kurdish civilians when George H.W Bush failed to follow up on his promise to support them in their uprising against Saddam. There is plenty of evidence you can find in history books everywhere that would detail to you the horrific things Saddam imposed on his people to ensure he stayed in power.

So...I believe the question of whether forceful regime change should be enforced depends very much on the country in question. I'm not saying the U.S must be the one doing said regime change, but at some point, the UN or any other bodies must draw a line and decide the appropriate action to rehabilitate the regime. What I think is sad, however, is how the U.S army and the coalition forces have severely mishandled the war in its crucial first few months, when they could have been capable of doing so much good to Iraq in the first place.

Singapore's Involvement in Iraq: More that We Can Do? replied by rover789 @ Sat, 12 Jul 2008 03:14:35 +0800

rover789 — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 03:14:35 +0800

(Sorry for the distorted post above.)

Most likely..as you said earlier, this was a pro-S'pore decision, so of course the outcome of it would benefit us, although predictably through money. I guess it's just a fact of politics. You win some, you lose some.

About the humanitarian situation in Iraq...maybe it's not really headline news right now, but a lot of stuff went down in the first few years of the occupation, if you recall. Remember the media frenzy right during the Fallujah seige?

And no, you don't judge whether these people are dying of hunger or wounded or so on just like that. I believe even the Straits Times doesn't have enough space to inform us whenever an Iraqi civilian, mujahideen or foreign fighter gets killed, wounded, starved, mistreated and so on. If you'd like more perspective on it, browse through the many news sources that actually dedicate on-the-ground news in Iraq. True, you can't believe all the news items, but with that multitude of information, you can form your opinion better around it. Check out what went down in the World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI) in Feb 2005, if you like.

Comparing the suffering between countries is impossible, I think. Sure, Africa has its own share of problems like malaria and AIDS, but we shouldn't let these "extremes" divert our attention away from other areas of disaster. Just cause we might perceive the suffering of the Iraqis are lesser than, say, the Somalis or Sudanese in Africa should not deter us from trying to lend a hand to either party. That would be the same as, say, not lending a hand to victims of the Sichuan earthquake because the people there are not suffering enough as compared to others, or believing that helping the Burmese people would be useless because the junta simply would not budge.

I guess we can't always try to extend aid to everywhere around the world, but there are lots of NGOs and international organizations that would love to have more of our support and opinion regarding the rehabilitation of Iraq and other war & disaster zones. These zones can't always get equal support, but that shouldn't stop us.

Singapore's Involvement in Iraq: More that We Can Do? replied by Meat Pao @ Sat, 12 Jul 2008 02:51:52 +0800

Meat Pao — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 02:51:52 +0800

In my opinion,

Singapore's involvement is just a tribute, from a small state to a big state.

Yes we can say it is for national interest, since Singapore would like to maintain good relations with USA.

Singapore has not much choice as a small state, it has to 'borrow power' from a bigger state to add to its own weight.

If Im not wrong, Singapore also do not wish to make a significant presence....no need to start a quarrel with the Arabs.....so...just a small presence.....you see...

But if I may comment abit, I disagree with the first post, which says it is correct to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

I think it is very dangerous when people start to toy with the idea of 'regime change' and start to accept this ideology.

If Im not wrong, even in the most severe cases, UN Security Council only punish countries who invade other countries, something Saddam didnt do at that time, and also he didnt do other severe crimes against humanity, such as genocide.

It is very wrong for a certain group of countries who happen to be powerful to take matters into their own hands and deploy 'regime change' to suit their vision, or their national interest.

Nobody should remove anyone from power except the people of that country themselves.

Meat Pao.

Singapore's Involvement in Iraq: More that We Can Do? replied by rover789 @ Sat, 12 Jul 2008 02:49:42 +0800

rover789 — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 02:49:42 +0800

And no, you don't judge whether these people are dying of hunger or wounded or so on just like that. Refer to the dependable sources such as by I believe even the Straits Times doesn't have enough space to inform us whenever an Iraqi civilian, mujahideen or foreign fighter gets killed, wounded, starved, mistreated and so on. If you'd like more perspective on browse through True, you can't believe all the news items, but at least have an idea

Comparing

Singapore's Involvement in Iraq: More that We Can Do? replied by stupidissmart @ Sat, 12 Jul 2008 02:08:17 +0800

stupidissmart — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 02:08:17 +0800

The gov probably agree to the war simply because it can make singapore richer than against it. Tat is it. If u talk about helping Iraqis, frankly speaking it is not gonna gather much attention because they r not dying of starvation or a lot of people who r injured and need rescue teams. Now they r just fighting among themselves and maybe just isolated. There r many regions facing worse problems than them, such as Africa. They r literally massacaring each other. Why not help them first ?

Recent Posts in 'Singapore's Involvement in Iraq: More that We Can Do?' | sgForums.com