Support NeoGAF

[Guileless]

please forget about the bathaaits cause everyone in iraq hated them.

As firest0rm has explained, Sunnis did not hate the Baathist government. They received a disproportionate benefit from it--i.e., he bought them all off with the oil wealth he stole from the Iraqi people. The other 80% (not counting the ones who couldn't think anymore because their bodies were in mass graves) hated the government.

 

[Azih]

Firestrom is right, Shias know that since they make up 60% of the population, they'll finally have power in a democratic Iraq. That is why Al-Sadr wasn't able to get the whole Shiite community behind him.

Sunnis and Kurds know this as well, and they're worried.

 

[Wendo]

So am I going to be on the FBI's "watch list" for watching that?

 

[FightyF]

Guileless: It's absolutely hypocritical for you to bring up the "mass graves" when the US oversaw the entire situation and didn't do squat about it, even though American troops were in Iraq at that time.

ANYONE using that arguement is a hypocrite. These mass graves were full of "Shia Terrorists" and didn't even make the American government flinch when they were all massacred.

Now, when it serves the interests of the current administration and people like yourself, you bring it up as if it actually matters to you.

If the lives of Iraqis mattered to you, then you would have been against an invasion of the country.

 

[Guileless]

I'm confused here. Is the American government evil for letting Iraqis get massacred in large numbers, or is it evil for invading the country to remove the man ordering the massacres? I think for consistency's sake you should choose one or the other.

Let me register my disappointment at again not having the "war for oil" theory clearly explained to me by its proponents. I'm going to get fill my car up with some $2/gallon gas now.

 

[FightyF]

I'm confused here. Is the American government evil for letting Iraqis get massacred in large numbers, or is it evil for invading the country to remove the man ordering the massacres? I think for consistency's sake you should choose one or the other.

The two situations aren't related. If they were related, then consistancy matters.

Secondly, it's the hypocracy that's wrong. I've never used the word "evil" in my entire post. I don't know where you got that from.

Breaking international law was wrong. Misleading people about Iraq's weapons programs was wrong. Advocating and pulling off an invasion that was predicted to cause a humanitarian crisis, plus kill many innocent people was wrong.

What I'm pointing out, is that when you claim that he killed his own people while we were in Iraq watching, as a means of justification...that's wrong as well. If you use that as justification, why didn't you do anything when you were only a few kilometres away?

Saying that 10 years ago, these dead people were terrorists and religious extremists that wanted a theocracy, and now they are called political opponents. Now let's talk consistancy. It's the same people...they are the constant. But it's a different time...that's the variable.

 

[Anthropic]

If the lives of Iraqis mattered to you, then you would have been against an invasion of the country.

To some extent, I agree with this argument. A war means that a certain number of people, innocent or not, will die. Anyone who supported the war, had to know that, consciously or unconsciously. Anyone who thought otherwise or (like the Bush Adminsitration) said otherwise was full of crap.

On the other hand, any nation that accepts a dictatorship is also accepting that there is a high possibility that when that dictator's government falls, it will fall in an incredibly violent way. It happened in England. It happened in France. It happened in Russia. By accepting the dictatorship, they're essentially borrowing lives. I'm sure it's happened in plenty of other places too but American history education is rather poor.

The point here is that any dictatorship is a blood loan. "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today". I mean, this is precisely one of the reasons why dictatorships are a bad thing. Unless you bring down the dictatorship yourself, on your own terms, you are ceding control of who lives and who dies to fate.

I'm not saying any of this justifies any of the deaths the US has caused in Iraq. However, there's almost no one who doesn't have blood on their hands in Iraq. We clearly do. The Iraqi people clearly do. The UN clearly does. The Arab nations that wouldn't consent to letting us take down Saddam in 1990 clearly do. The Europeans who decided to stay on their moral high ground while thousands died in Iraq clearly do.

 

[Folder]

It is widely accepted by ill-informed and naive people who don't take the time to educate themselves on the realities of fungible markets. "Oil access" could be had for a few trade concessions to Saddam--allow him to kill, terrorize, and torture as long as he sells us cheap oil (you know, like France and Russia were doing). That would have been a lot easier than invading the country to topple him and investing billions in Iraqi infrastructure.

Hillarious. Remember the Iran/Iraq war? Remember who invented dealing with Iraq for oil? Are you *tripping* when you point the finger at France and Russia? The simple fact is that Iraq refused US dmands for ricing and supply commitments.
Do you, by any chance, enjoy watching Fox News?

How's that exactly? From Fareed Zakaria's latest Newsweek article:

And as everyone knows, a single article proves any single point one may wish to make...

 

[Guileless]

Fight for Freeform, the 1991 Shiite uprising was a terrible miscalculation by the US government, as all of the decisionmakers have acknowledged. They fundamentally misjudged how firmly entrenched in power Saddam was and his ruthlessness in dealing with political opponents. But to stop it would have required "breaking international law"-- which you seem to object to strongly--that's the main reason nothing was done.

Do you think the US should never again have taken any affirmative action to stop the filling of mass graves in Iraq because it would be "hypocritical?" Is it hypocritical to learn from your mistakes? Why are you are focusing solely on that event? While many people were killed, it amounted to a small percentage of the overall death toll racked up by 40 years of Saddam's regime.

Saying that 10 years ago, these dead people were terrorists and religious extremists that wanted a theocracy, and now they are called political opponents. Now let's talk consistancy. It's the same people...they are the constant. But it's a different time...that's the variable.

That is incomprehensible. What are you talking about?

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

Hillarious. Remember the Iran/Iraq war? Remember who invented dealing with Iraq for oil? Are you *tripping* when you point the finger at France and Russia? The simple fact is that Iraq refused US dmands for ricing and supply commitments.
Do you, by any chance, enjoy watching Fox News?

And as everyone knows, a single article proves any single point one may wish to make...

Read Anthropic's post. He came very close to nailing it.

Quote:
'Tis the way of new war



The "new" way?

I have a friend that remarked soon after the al-Sadr revolt/power-grab last year that we have entered an Age of Vigilanteeism, one where invading, controlling, pacifying, and governing peoples and territories is archaic and more difficult. With the spread of instant news media, luddite religious zealots, and a more verbal, pacifist diplomatic environment, merely revolting in a revolting a manner as possible is good enough. As long as others are willing to follow someone's twisted vision with justified horrors, that someone's drive has infinite longetivity, despite defeat after defeat. All one has to do is reference an injustice in the past, pontificate to all via audio/visual means streamed everywhere in minutes, and cause innocent people great physical and emotional trauma at random because The Cause is "Right".

 

[Che]

Firestrom is right, Shias know that since they make up 60% of the population, they'll finally have power in a democratic Iraq. That is why Al-Sadr wasn't able to get the whole Shiite community behind him.

Sunnis and Kurds know this as well, and they're worried.

I'm sorry but you're insulting the intelligence of Shiites now. Everyone in Iraq knows -actually let me rephrase that- anyone in the world knows except people who think Fox News is an accurate newschannel that whoever candidate gets elected he will be USA's puppet first and a Shia far second. The reason why every Shia isn't behind Al-Sadr is another. You see Iraq 10-15 years ago was one of the most rich and civilized Muslim nations in the world. Not everyone has the guts to leave his family and fight the oppressors for his freedom.

 

[Drozmight]

An Iraqi Shia who wants democracy? What a suprise. I bet you can't wait for your kin to take control of the country and exact their revenge on the Sunni.


I kid. I kid.

 

[Guileless]

The simple fact is that Iraq refused US dmands for ricing and supply commitments.

Folder, what does this mean? Does it explain the "war for oil" theory? I realize you think I'm slow, so please explain it to me like a 5 year old. In your answer, discuss under which government you think ordinary Iraqis will benefit more from oil revenue: Saddam's or the new government to be put in place.

And as everyone knows, a single article proves any single point one may wish to make...

I'm not offering it to "prove the point." It's an opinion column that doesn't "prove" anything. I quoted it because it is a good expression of my view on the subect of Iraqi reconstruction. Fareed Zakaria knows a lot more about this than I do, and probably you, too. Did you read it? It's a direct repudiation of your argument. Why is it wrong? Either you are incapable of making a persuasive argument to support your points or you would rather just be condescending. How about another Fox News riptose? That would be a good way to avoid the subject. Che will like it.

 

[Folder]

Was Iraq the worst dictatorship in the world?
No.
Was Saddam the worst dictator in the world?
No.
Does the US actively trade with far worse regimes? (Amnesty ranked)
Yes.
Was Iraq the most dangerous state in the world?
No.
Did invading the country make the world safer?
No.
Did invading the county make the world much more dangerous?
Yes.
Does Iraq have some of the richest oil fields in the world?
Yes.
Did Iraq do business with the US?
No.
Does the US government essentially control Iraq’s oilfields today?
Yes.

Hmmm. It’s a wild conspiracy of course…
Guileless, out of interest, where in the world are you from?

 

[Guileless]

Asking and answering vauge, generalized questions is still not a convincing argument. The war for oil argument is a tangent from the original thread discussion about the nature and motives of the Iraqi insurgency. Did you read the column or what?

Even if you think the US government/corporations will steal all the oil wealth possible (despite strict audit procedures), if the Iraqis have some form of consensual government with protection for minority rights they'll be better off than they were under an Orwellian police state that stole all the oil wealth.

I live in Oxford, Mississippi, home of William Faulkner and the setting for most of his novels. I recommend Light in August for further reading.

 

[Azih]

I'm sorry but you're insulting the intelligence of Shiites now.

Bleh to you Che, I'm not Iraqi but I am Shia. And you have an actual Iraqi Shia in this topic as well. Talk to him about what he thinks, don't assume. Because as of your post, you've just called him... and me unintelligent.

America's plans for Iraq went to hell as soon as the insurgents revolted in the sunni triangle. They really went to hell when stupid Paul Bremer decided to take on Al-Sadr, thus creating two regions of violent unrest. And they were completely shot to pieces by the fact that in America's ideal view Ahmed freaking Chalabi would be eased into government.

America really isn't in charge right now, and since the most powerful political force campaigning in the nation has the blessing of Sistani (who is *not* in any way an American puppet and frankly immune to American pressure), this election could very easily see Iraq having an actual legitimate government. And since the eyes of the world are on Iraq, if the government tells Americans to leave.. they'll *have* to.

You see Iraq 10-15 years ago was one of the most rich and civilized Muslim nations in the world. Not everyone has the guts to leave his family and fight the oppressors for his freedom.

No idea what you're talking about. The reason that Shias haven't risen up is a) they listen to Sistani who is a calm and sane influence and b) they know that a really democratic Iraq will protect them because as the majority they'll be in power. It's the Best. Case. Scenario for them.

Plus unlike the Kurds, Shias are suspicious of the U.S. Partly because of what happened at the end of the gulf war. Partly because of the American failure to prevent looting initially and keep law and order later. And partly because of how Bremer acted towards Sadr. Now is it possible that some Chalabi like opportunistic leech will try to take advantage and take the presidency to become america's #1 bitch? Sure, but Sistani's influence plus the fact that Chalabi like characters don't get much respect means that it's unlikely.

The only remaining thing to consider is will the elections be fair? If they are run by non US authorities then I don't see why not. If there's one thing that the invasion of Iraq has shown it is that the West is not a homogenous entity and French/German/Canadian etc. election monitors aren't likely to be fudging results for the CIA.

 

[Firest0rm]

Ok I'm really frustrated by some of the things people say here, and I really don't have the time or patience to type out thousands of words in response to them with the workload I have to deal with at the time being. HOWEVER, I wish to point out a few things.

Fight for Freedom, I understand your point of view and your concern for the lives of people who are suffering due to the actions of the US. But nothing stays consistant, the world always changes and there's nothing you can do about it other than adapt. I admire peoples concerns for the status of Iraqi's. All the protests against the war and such. But the FACT is their worthless. They do nothing for the people of Iraq. Its true that innocent Iraqi's are dying today, but today's tomorrow is another day, a day that could be different where an Iraqi isn't disappearing/being tortured/or killed. And because of the war there is a tomorrow for Iraq. If the US never stepped in, no one would have.

I know that the US wants the oil and it also wants Iraq for other regional benefits. But whats wrong with that? At least now there's the possibility of a better life for Iraqi's. Under the Ba'ath there never was a chance. No chance, no possibility, and no tomorrow. Tomorrow would have been a repeat of today or yesterday. Another day where numerous Iraqi's disappear into the hands of the Mukhabarat. They were NEVER going to let go of their power. The only difference between today and the days under Saddam is that today you get reports of the people dying and going missing. Back then there was nothing, nothing on the news. Families kept it to themselves. You didn't know about shit and frankly I bet no one gave a shit. But now that its getting public attention people are seeing what the Ba'ath have been doing for 30 years. All these hostages being taken and similar events are the specialty of the Ba'ath. They dont have super weapons, but what they do have and have perfected over the course of their 30 year reign is the use of fear. Its a perfect weapon against anyone. Don't think that just because the US is in there that these things just started happening. They always were happening in the background. always.

And people keep bringing up this arguement of "US puppet", how will that happen? If the government is elected by Iraqi's, how would you know its going to be a "puppet"?

Anyway, I'm done with my post. I've got to go back to studying for exams.

 

[Folder]

I love the use of "insurgency"
It makes murdering those repelling an illegal invading army seem so much easier...

 

[Guileless]

Folder, are you serious? Are you still posting in this thread despite completely ignoring the points I raised? (not to mention the actual Iraqi who disagrees with you, something that could only happen here on the GAF OT.)

At least Che, Fight for Freeform, and xsarien just abandon threads once their assumptions are challenged and they are unable to defend their positions. Do you have any shame? Don't you want to tell me why I'm wrong?

Edit: Folder, and everyone else who sympathizes with the insurgents and "would be doing the same thing' here's something else you can ignore: a suicide bombing plowed into a funeral procession today and killed 50 people in Najaf, 16 people died in a similar bombing in Karbala, and an election worker was killed in Baghdad. I'm sure you're all pleased at these efforts to repel the illegal invasion.

Please post again Folder. Please.

 

[Firest0rm]

I love the use of "insurgency"
It makes murdering those repelling an illegal invading army seem so much easier...

Your very right. They should be calling them Ba'ath swine, but then there are those select few extremists in there who aren't from the Ba'ath but are still swines.

 

[Zilch]

9 out of 10 liberal tools agree -- Islamic extremists not "that" bad!

 

[FightyF]

At least Che, Fight for Freeform, and xsarien just abandon threads once their assumptions are challenged and they are unable to defend their positions.

Actually I didn't respond since you've never made a clear and decisive point backed up by facts. You just spew rhetoric that is easily shown to be false by mere google searches.

 

[FightyF]

Fight for Freeform, the 1991 Shiite uprising was a terrible miscalculation by the US government, as all of the decisionmakers have acknowledged. They fundamentally misjudged how firmly entrenched in power Saddam was and his ruthlessness in dealing with political opponents. But to stop it would have required "breaking international law"-- which you seem to object to strongly--that's the main reason nothing was done.

No it wouldn't have, preventing any of Saddam's troops from mobilizing and moving wouldn't have broken any international law.

Do you think the US should never again have taken any affirmative action to stop the filling of mass graves in Iraq because it would be "hypocritical?" Is it hypocritical to learn from your mistakes? Why are you are focusing solely on that event? While many people were killed, it amounted to a small percentage of the overall death toll racked up by 40 years of Saddam's regime.

And that's a small percentage compared to how many Iraqis have died and suffered from UN Sanctions, that the US endorses and benefits from.

It's hypocritical because in that case YOU WANTED THEM TO DIE. Now you claim that these people were victims. If anything, they are also your victims.

That is incomprehensible. What are you talking about?

I'm talking about the words you use to describe the people killed. When it serves you, they are terrorists, and when it serves you in another case, they are victims.

Which is it?

In your responses to Folder, you've clearly demonstrated that you don't understand who the US is fighting at the moment, there are various groups with various causes.

This video is proof that some are fighting for a different cause than the Baathists.

There is much proof that the American soldiers are facing non-Iraqi fighters.

You see Guileless, you don't understand the situation in Iraq. You don't understand the people, and you don't understand it's history. So why comment on it? It's making you look like a fool.

 

[Firest0rm]

In your responses to Folder, you've clearly demonstrated that you don't understand who the US is fighting at the moment, there are various groups with various causes.

This video is proof that some are fighting for a different cause than the Baathists.

There is much proof that the American soldiers are facing non-Iraqi fighters.

You see Guileless, you don't understand the situation in Iraq. You don't understand the people, and you don't understand it's history. So why comment on it? It's making you look like a fool.

So do you know Iraq inside out? You understand us and our history? Have you specialized in the history of Iraq? And please don't fall for that bullshit video, people are so easily fooled these days. None of any of these groups are fighting for the freedom of Iraq. And this group is more than likely to be another Ba'ath group doing their usual tricks.

Also, It's true there are a number of foreign fighters in Iraq. But their a very small number.

 

[Folder]

Folder, are you serious? Are you still posting in this thread despite completely ignoring the points I raised? (not to mention the actual Iraqi who disagrees with you, something that could only happen here on the GAF OT.)

At least Che, Fight for Freeform, and xsarien just abandon threads once their assumptions are challenged and they are unable to defend their positions. Do you have any shame? Don't you want to tell me why I'm wrong?

Edit: Folder, and everyone else who sympathizes with the insurgents and "would be doing the same thing' here's something else you can ignore: a suicide bombing plowed into a funeral procession today and killed 50 people in Najaf, 16 people died in a similar bombing in Karbala, and an election worker was killed in Baghdad. I'm sure you're all pleased at these efforts to repel the illegal invasion.

Please post again Folder. Please.

Dearest boy.
You decided to write off the thought of anyone else as being generalised. The Q&A above illustrates what to any human is the simple, underpinning fact of the matter: The USA invaded Iraq for the benefit of its oil industry. It's also worth remember from which industry much of the Republican party springs.
Arguing this point seems insane to me.
Why do you think every single humanitarian agency condemned the invasion? Perhaps they are all blind too, blind and making vague generalised complaints regarding the huge levels of civilian death.
Pah! Pathetic bleeding hearts! Money, as everyone know, is far more important than human life and freedom from invasion. Enjoy filling up your car with two dollar gas. I'll join the rest of what remains of the wider human race and shed a tear for the state of the planet under demonic US control backed by the Fox New fuelled propaganda regurgitating red neck masses.

 

[MacGuffin]

Off Topic...
Folder, please delete a PM or 2, so I can respond to the PM you sent me concerning the AC stuff.

 

[Folder]

So do you know Iraq inside out? You understand us and our history? Have you specialized in the history of Iraq? And please don't fall for that bullshit video, people are so easily fooled these days. None of any of these groups are fighting for the freedom of Iraq. And this group is more than likely to be another Ba'ath group doing their usual tricks.

Also, It's true there are a number of foreign fighters in Iraq. But their a very small number.

Given that you are now this board's voice of Iraq, please qualify yourself.
Political party
Generation outside homeland
Time spent in Iraq

 

[Azih]

The people attacking Shias in Shia holy cities are not doing so out of a hatred of the U.S. They're Sunnis unhappy with the loss of Saddam trying to cause a civil war for no sane reason.

The people taking hostages out of U.N/aid workers.... they could be either or.

 

[Che]

Folder, are you serious? Are you still posting in this thread despite completely ignoring the points I raised? (not to mention the actual Iraqi who disagrees with you, something that could only happen here on the GAF OT.)

At least Che, Fight for Freeform, and xsarien just abandon threads once their assumptions are challenged and they are unable to defend their positions. Do you have any shame? Don't you want to tell me why I'm wrong?

Edit: Folder, and everyone else who sympathizes with the insurgents and "would be doing the same thing' here's something else you can ignore: a suicide bombing plowed into a funeral procession today and killed 50 people in Najaf, 16 people died in a similar bombing in Karbala, and an election worker was killed in Baghdad. I'm sure you're all pleased at these efforts to repel the illegal invasion.

Please post again Folder. Please.

Wow! You think that I'm not answering because I can't? The truth is I'm getting tired of dealing with complete tools whose opinions are so ignorant that piss me off all the time, so I'm just disdaining to answer. Firest0rm is obviously not representative of his country since: he doesn't live in Iraq, is not poor while others are making billions by illegally exploiting his county's natural resources, hasn't lived the oppression and violation of his human rights by a foreign army. Plus like Folder explained we don't know tons of stuff for him. Oh and another reason I avoid to answer you and especially Firest0rm is that I would probably use some strong words.

As for the "affirmative action to stop the filling of mass graves in Iraq" you mentioned earlier, you should probably consider reading a couple of stuff for the mass graves in Afganistan created by the US army by killing in cold blood hundreds of Taliban captives, before ever thinking that the US goverment gives a shit about human lives. You're ignorant and totally clueless but I forgive you.

 

[Azih]

WHAT?

 

[Firest0rm]

Given that you are now this board's voice of Iraq, please qualify yourself.
Political party
Generation outside homeland
Time spent in Iraq

I have no affiliaton with any political party.

I'm the first generation living outside of Iraq, (from my family) if thats what your asking.

Unfortunately I've only been to Iraq once. I lived most of my life in Jordan. My family left Iraq in the mid-80's. I still have many family members who are in Iraq and who we are in contact with on a weekly basis.

I'm not going to bother with with this topic anymore, all it does is get me more pissed at the situation. But I'll just say one last thing. Freedom always comes at the highest price, and will never be achieved if sacrifices aren't made. Like I said before, ofcourse America is doing this for its own benefit, but along with it comes the possibility of a better future. This possibility would have never existed if the US didn't remove Saddam. No matter what anyone says, the only way for Iraq to move towards a better futures was if an external force stepped in. I'm not saying America is the good guys, its sucks that it has to be this way but thats the reality of the situation. If any one of you guys has a better idea of how Iraqi's could have gotten freedom then please do tell us.

 

[Guileless]

Wow, I actually shamed some of y'all into responses. This time, I will try to provoke you to respond with some sort of argument to support your points instead of name-calling and ranting. I'll respond to everyone eventually in the next few days. Folder first:

The Q&A above illustrates what to any human is the simple, underpinning fact of the matter: The USA invaded Iraq for the benefit of its oil industry

I don't know how else to say this slick, but asking yourself a rhetorical question and answering it with a single word does not make for a persuasive argument on a complicated subject. For the third time, I invite you to explain yourself fully and try to convince me. There's got to be a reason you believe this right? What is it? Don't you want this member of the redneck masses to know the truth that you, with your superior intellect, have been able to glean?

I'll join the rest of what remains of the wider human race and shed a tear for the state of the planet under demonic US control backed by the Fox New fuelled propaganda regurgitating red neck masses.

Here's some facts Folder (facts are verifiable data that are used to support an argument). For the first time in human history, a majority of the globe lives under some form of representative government. Living standards, across the board, are the highest they have ever been, and they are rising. Is this indicative of a world suffering under the demonic control of a hegemon? I would say no, but perhaps you can convince me otherwise.

--What exactly is "demonic" control, and what are its hallmarks?

--When you explain your concept of demonic US control, please discuss the recent histories of South Korea, Germany, Japan, Italy, Eastern Europe, Afghanistan, Kuwait, and Kosovo. How are their recent histories examples of demonic US control?

--Imagine that isolationists in the US had won the debate over WW2 and there had been no US military intervention in Europe; would the world be more or less demonic if the Nazi or Soviet empires had endured until today?

--Tell me about the demonic control exerted by the US over you personally. How does it work? What makes it "demonic?"

Thanks in advance for your responses. I'm sure they will be helpful and thorough.

 

[Che]

I have no affiliaton with any political party.

I'm the first generation living outside of Iraq, (from my family) if thats what your asking.

Unfortunately I've only been to Iraq once. I lived most of my life in Jordan. My family left Iraq in the mid-80's. I still have many family members who are in Iraq and who we are in contact with on a weekly basis.

I'm not going to bother with with this topic anymore, all it does is get me more pissed at the situation. But I'll just say one last thing. Freedom always comes at the highest price, and will never be achieved if sacrifices aren't made. Like I said before, ofcourse America is doing this for its own benefit, but along with it comes the possibility of a better future. This possibility would have never existed if the US didn't remove Saddam. No matter what anyone says, the only way for Iraq to move towards a better futures was if an external force stepped in. I'm not saying America is the good guys, its sucks that it has to be this way but thats the reality of the situation. If any one of you guys has a better idea of how Iraqi's could have gotten freedom then please do tell us.

You're killing me man. So what you're saying is that every time a dictatorship is installed in a country (at least without USA's approval*), it should be invaded, bombed with depleted uranium bombs for years which btw has caused thousands if not millions of deaths amongst Iraqis (fatal injuries or cancer), taken over, have its natural resources illegaly exploited, treated like a slave nation (no rights for its citizens), and then be ruled by a puppet goverment. And you're kidding yourself if you think that the candidates for the Iraqi elections won't have been previously approved by USA -I'm not even replying to that seriously.

*edit: And in case I get misunderstood: Saddam's regime had USA's approval; it was later that they didn't obey them and suddenly became "evil".

 

[Firest0rm]

You're killing me man. So what you're saying is that every time a dictatorship is installed in a country (at least without USA's approval*), it should be invaded, bombed with depleted uranium bombs for years which btw has caused thousands if not millions of deaths amongst Iraqis (fatal injuries or cancer), taken over, have its natural resources illegaly exploited, treated like a slave nation (no rights for its citizens), and then be ruled by a puppet goverment. And you're kidding yourself if you think that the candidates for the Iraqi elections won't have been previously approved by USA -I'm not even replying to that seriously.

* edit: And in case I get misunderstood: Saddam's regime had USA's approval; it was later that they didn't obey them and became "evil".

I know I said I wouldn't answer but this deserves a response.

Your throwing two unrelated wars into one big war? Depleted Uranium is a completely different topic and has nothing to do with this war. Your making no point with your arguments. So many people do this. They just mention how people died but not why they died. Don't think I'm pro-US, I'm not happy about what happened during the last war. A war that should have ENDED Saddam's reign. I do hate the US government for numerous things they've done against Iraqis. However I still view them as Iraq's only ticket out of Ba'ath control. And you still haven't given me any alternative to a war to take out a dictator.

Second, the list of parties that have been accepted into the elections are around 200. Yep their all puppets right? I know one that is likely to become a "US puppet" and that's Allawi's party. But I don't think he would fully become a "US puppet". Sistani's party which is the one likely to win the election, would be FAR from a US puppet. But then again, whats your definition of US puppet? Does co-operating mean their the US's puppet? Do they have to say "f*** off" USA after the elections for them to please you? So you can say that their not US puppets?

 

[Che]

I know I said I wouldn't answer but this deserves a response.

Your throwing two unrelated wars into one big war? Depleted Uranium is a completely different topic and has nothing to do with this war. Your making no point with your arguments. So many people do this. They just mention how people died but not why they died. Don't think I'm pro-US, I'm not happy about what happened during the last war. A war that should have ENDED Saddam's reign. I do hate the US government for numerous things they've done against Iraqis. However I still view them as Iraq's only ticket out of Ba'ath control. And you still haven't given me any alternative to a war to take out a dictator.

Second, the list of parties that have been accepted into the elections are around 200. Yep their all puppets right? I know one that is likely to become a "US puppet" and that's Allawi's party. But I don't think he would fully become a "US puppet". Sistani's party which is the one likely to win the election, would be FAR from a US puppet. But then again, whats your definition of US puppet? Does co-operating mean their the US's puppet? Do they have to say "f*** off" USA after the elections for them to please you? So you can say that their not US puppets?

First of all I'm not throwing two wars into one, depleted uranium was also used in the 2003 war and has everything to do with how much USA cares about Iraqis; they're throwing radioactive dirty bombs onto them for god's sake! My other remarks still stand and you haven't responded to them.

As for the later I'm gonna keep my promise and not reply to you. The only thing you're prooving with it is how naive you are.

 

[Firest0rm]

First of all I'm not throwing two wars into one, depleted uranium was also used in the 2003 war and has everything to do with how much USA cares about Iraqis; they're throwing radioactive dirty bombs onto them for god's sake! My other remarks still stand and you haven't responded to them.

As for the later I'm gonna keep my promise and not reply to you. The only thing you're proving with it is how naive you are.

I've already spoken abotu your points in my earlier posts and I'm going to bother going through for you again. You can go back and look at them.

I just did a bit of research and found what you were talking about regarding the DU, that really pisses me off especially since they seem to be using more DU than they did last time. The use of DU is definitely something that I against, and its one of the things that I despise the US government for doing. But lets be realistic here, what nation cares about Iraqi's? Care to name me one nation?

Now you still haven't answered me when I ask how would you have had Saddam and the Ba'ath removed?

 

[Che]

I've already spoken abotu your points in my earlier posts and I'm going to bother going through for you again. You can go back and look at them.

I just did a bit of research and found what you were talking about regarding the DU, that really pisses me off especially since they seem to be using more DU than they did last time. The use of DU is definitely something that I against, and its one of the things that I despise the US government for doing. But lets be realistic here, what nation cares about Iraqi's? Care to name me one nation?

Now you still haven't answered me when I ask how would you have had Saddam and the Ba'ath removed?

Actually I can't decide about that and noone can except -of course- Iraqis. Saddam was a mass murderer no doubt about that. Don't forget though that he had the chance to become one just because USA betrayed the people who promised that they would help (and urged to revolute) and then left them to the mercy of a lunatic. Also don't forget that USA was the one that approved his election and supported helped and funded the Baath party to come into power. Considering all this I wouldn't even consider this as a solution. A mass revolution would probably have less victims the US invasion caused, plus you would be able to keep your wealth to your country amongst countless other advantages. I repeat to be invaded by a foreign nation which has betrayed you again and again and has prooved that they don't give a fuck about you is not a solution.

 

[Guileless]

Fight for Freeform:

No it wouldn't have, preventing any of Saddam's troops from mobilizing and moving wouldn't have broken any international law.

You are wrong. The UN Resolution authorizing military action against Iraq was only applied to ending the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait. Sending ground troops far into Iraq after the Iraqi army had abandoned Kuwiat would have been outside the jurisdiction conferred by the UN, and thus--by your own definition--a violation of international law. In addition, many of the partners of the coaltion joined on the condition that military action be limited only to ejecting the Iraqi Army from Kuwait. That said, encouraging the Shiite rebellion and failing to support it was a grevious error

by the American government. But as I asked earlier (and you ignored), does this mean that the US should never try to help them again, because it would be hypocritical? I don't understand that view. I would argue that the US had a greater moral obligation to help the Shiites after this mistake.

And that's a small percentage compared to how many Iraqis have died and suffered from UN Sanctions, that the US endorses and benefits from.

How did the US benefit from sanctions? US companies were prohibited from doing business with Saddam's regime.
The sanctions did disproportionately hurt the Iraqi people, which was another good reason for regime change. If you didn't want to sanction or remove Saddam, what did you want to do with him? Wait for him to invade a third country? That's not realisitc. War was the least bad option, in my opinion. What would you have done, if you were president of the US? Please answer in detail.

In your responses to Folder, you've clearly demonstrated that you don't understand who the US is fighting at the moment, there are various groups with various causes.

How did I demonstrate that? I understand the two principal groups to be former Baathists who want to regain power, and fundamental Islamists who want a Taliban-style theocracy to emerge from a failed state. What are the groups, and why am I wrong?

You see Guileless, you don't understand the situation in Iraq. You don't understand the people, and you don't understand it's history. So why comment on it? It's making you look like a fool.

No I don't see. How do I not understand the people and the history of Iraq? Cite specific examples of where I'm wrong, or please apologize for calling me a fool for no reason.

Edit:

Actually I didn't respond since you've never made a clear and decisive point backed up by facts. You just spew rhetoric that is easily shown to be false by mere google searches.

You think I've never made a clear point in all of our disagreements? That's ridiculous. In this post alone there are several clear points, and I even bolded some questions to prompt you to respond to these clear points (though I'm sure you will ignore them as always). When did you disprove anything I said by a mere google search? Cite specific examples please.

 

[Folder]

To Firestorm I say. It seems I'm as Iraqi as you are. Pipe down.

Guileless. This is how you are conducting your argument: Whatever is said, you write it off, offering no reason for doing so. You then say that no argument has been offered. It's cheap and it's transparent.


--Here's some facts Folder (facts are verifiable data that are used to support an argument). For the first time in human history, a majority of the globe lives under some form of representative government. Living standards, across the board, are the highest they have ever been, and they are rising. Is this indicative of a world suffering under the demonic control of a hegemon? I would say no, but perhaps you can convince me otherwise.

Simply not true. Taken as a mean, that is an unrepresentative figure. The wealth divide is widening. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT. The endless warning from independant humanitarian organisations, the organisations you have deemed fit to ignore throughout this debate, illustrate this. For reference, the famine in Sudan and Ethiopia is worse now than in 1984

--What exactly is "demonic" control, and what are its hallmarks?

That would be the exploitation of the world's poor for the gain of the world's rich

--When you explain your concept of demonic US control, please discuss the recent histories of South Korea, Germany, Japan, Italy, Eastern Europe, Afghanistan, Kuwait, and Kosovo. How are their recent histories examples of demonic US control?

Do you really think that UN-guided military intervention counts as a feather in the US cap? LOL. Hilarious. Might wonder where that UN backing was with Iraq... And as for your *comedy* selection of US military interventions, there are still huge swathes of Central and South America, South East Asia and the Africa still is absolute crisis following US intervention over the past 50 years. Do I need to point out which nations they are? Do I really? As for Kuwait, thank the lord you stepped in there. Although they have public beheadings and one of the worst human rights records on the planet, especially with regard to women, at least they sell you guys cheap oil. A connection? Surely not.

--Imagine that isolationists in the US had won the debate over WW2 and there had been no US military intervention in Europe; would the world be more or less demonic if the Nazi or Soviet empires had endured until today?

Yeah. That way the US wouldn't have been able to test out its new exciting nuclear weapon toy on the civilians of Japan. That would have been a real shame. Or does Japan not count?

--Tell me about the demonic control exerted by the US over you personally. How does it work? What makes it "demonic?"

That would be the exploitation of the world's poor for the gain of the world's rich... I have to live in a world which pretends children don't die of starvation whilst the rich select new golden bath fixtures. And there's little (more than I do already) I can do to change this.

 

[Azih]

Alright look people, opposing the *invasion* of Iraq does not mean that you have to oppose the *elections*. Also it seems to me that the only reason Che and Folder dont' think that firestrom is Iraqi is because he doesn't agree with them. What the hell kinda screwy logic is that? It's insane.


Here's the obvious lesson that you two seem to have missed. No one can speak for the average Iraqi because THERE IS NO SUCH THING. The place is not frikin homogenous at all; the only thing all Iraqis have in common is that they're swarthy... that is it.

You've got broad distinction between Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds. And that's just the start, you have some Shias that support the radical Al-Sadr, you've got Shias that support the moderate Sistani, neither of these are pro American, the latter aren't violent at all and the former are easily easily provoked to violence.

Then in terms of Sunnis you've got the hardcore Saddam/Baath loyalists that lived like lords under Saddam, and you've got the ones that didn't. The former are vicously anti American for all the wrong reasons (and violent too) and the latter are extremely nervous because they know that they are associated with the old regime (under which 80% of the population suffered terribly, a population that at the very least will be bitter and at the most will want vengance).

I don't know too much about the Kurds but I do know that they are the only ones with pro american sentiment. They've gotten used to the autonomy they've had since the invasion which is something that niether the Sunnis or the Shias are particularly happy with. And you can bet there's factions within the Kurds too.

There's plenty of other groups, factions, sub groups, schims, splits in there too, you have the Christian Arab Iraqis that by and large attached themselves to Saddam's regime and are extremely worried. You have opportunistic hangers on that just want to be close to the reigns of power (Chalabi, Allawi types). And then you have Al-Qaeda like foreign and Iraqi fighters that just want to hurt the West.

All of these groups want different things, and quite a few of them (most Shias, Kurds, Sunnis who just want to move on) want elections. The ones that don't want the elections are *not* *nice* *people*.

 

[Folder]

Che and Folder dont' think that firestrom is Iraqi is because he doesn't agree with them. What the hell kinda screwy logic is that? It's insane.

I believe he's ethnically Iraqi.
I guarantee that politically and socio-ethically he's as Iraqi as me.

 

[Azih]

Screw that for two reasons.

One. Just being ethnically/religiously associated to a place gives you a connection that others don't. Hell I'm Pakistani shia (very loose connection to this conflict), and because of that I'm really really sympathetic to Iraqi Shias. The crazy Sunni on Shia violence that happens in my motherland gives me a very good idea of the vicious division that can seperate the two sects and does in Iraq.

Two. The man has relatives in the region. I don't need to expand on that because dammit he has RELATIVES IN THE REGION. And hell he lived really close to them when he was in Jordan.

Guys firestrom is Iraqi and Shia so if you really want to have a *very good* general idea of what Iraqi Shias are thinking then SHUT UP AND LISTEN.

*shakes fist*

 

[Folder]

Screw that for two reasons.

One. Just being ethnically/religiously associated to a place gives you a connection that others don't. Hell I'm Pakistani shia (very loose connection to this conflict), and because of that I'm really really sympathetic to Iraqi Shias. The crazy Sunni on Shia violence that happens in my motherland gives me a very good idea of the vicious division that can seperate the two sects and does in Iraq.

Two. The man has relatives in the region. I don't need to expand on that because dammit he has RELATIVES IN THE REGION. And hell he lived really close to them when he was in Jordan.

Guys firestrom is Iraqi and Shia so if you really want to have a *very good* general idea of what Iraqi Shias are thinking then SHUT UP AND LISTEN.

*shakes fist*

Aside from the fact that his opinion differs to every singly majority opinion reported from an independant source the length and bredth of the country...

 

[Azih]

Aside from the fact that his opinion differs to every singly majority opinion reported from an independant source the length and bredth of the country...

What are you talking about?

Also way to ignore every freaking thing I've said in the last two posts

*grumbles*.

 

[Folder]

What are you talking about?

My only point is that you cannot hold him up as being representative of Iraqis or as representing validation to the *insane* ramblings of Guileless.

 

[Folder]

Folder:

I am a liberal guy (don't support the war, not religious etc.) but I have to ask you to please stop, you generalize like no other. You are what is wrong with political discourse across the globe, everything is black and white and talking points. Just stop, for the children just stop. Maybe bitching at some people on a message board about how sad the current state of the world is makes you feel better, gives you a sense of purpose, whatever, but you just come across as a petulant child....immature...annoying.

Yet your post is a total generalisation about my posts...

 

[Che]

Screw that for two reasons.

One. Just being ethnically/religiously associated to a place gives you a connection that others don't. Hell I'm Pakistani shia (very loose connection to this conflict), and because of that I'm really really sympathetic to Iraqi Shias. The crazy Sunni on Shia violence that happens in my motherland gives me a very good idea of the vicious division that can seperate the two sects and does in Iraq.

Two. The man has relatives in the region. I don't need to expand on that because dammit he has RELATIVES IN THE REGION. And hell he lived really close to them when he was in Jordan.

Guys firestrom is Iraqi and Shia so if you really want to have a *very good* general idea of what Iraqi Shias are thinking then SHUT UP AND LISTEN.

*shakes fist*

To every republican out there celebrating with Firest0rm's responce: First, from what I've understood from his posts Firest0rm doesn't like the republicans and what they did, he just believes it was the only way to get rid of Saddam, which I, find really stupid cause if every time a dictator was installed and US was attacking his country killing thousands, now half of the nations in the world would be at war with the US. Also it's obvious that he's not aware of many many things about Iraq no matter how he claims that he's relatives are there (plus we don't know many things about them -are they poor are they rich connected with american interests etc etc.). It's like Firest0rm hates more the Sunnites who afterall are his people than the invading power which murdered thousands more than Saddam ever did. At least Saddam cared for his country and it's economy unlike the new puppets which will certainly approve the ridiculous humiliating for Iraq and most important, illegal oil contracts USA has made.

To Firestorm I say. It seems I'm as Iraqi as you are. Pipe down.

Guileless. This is how you are conducting your argument: Whatever is said, you write it off, offering no reason for doing so. You then say that no argument has been offered. It's cheap and it's transparent.


--Here's some facts Folder (facts are verifiable data that are used to support an argument). For the first time in human history, a majority of the globe lives under some form of representative government. Living standards, across the board, are the highest they have ever been, and they are rising. Is this indicative of a world suffering under the demonic control of a hegemon? I would say no, but perhaps you can convince me otherwise.

Simply not true. Taken as a mean, that is an unrepresentative figure. The wealth divide is widening. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT. The endless warning from independant humanitarian organisations, the organisations you have deemed fit to ignore throughout this debate, illustrate this. For reference, the famine in Sudan and Ethiopia is worse now than in 1984

--What exactly is "demonic" control, and what are its hallmarks?

That would be the exploitation of the world's poor for the gain of the world's rich

--When you explain your concept of demonic US control, please discuss the recent histories of South Korea, Germany, Japan, Italy, Eastern Europe, Afghanistan, Kuwait, and Kosovo. How are their recent histories examples of demonic US control?

Do you really think that UN-guided military intervention counts as a feather in the US cap? LOL. Hilarious. Might wonder where that UN backing was with Iraq... And as for your *comedy* selection of US military interventions, there are still huge swathes of Central and South America, South East Asia and the Africa still is absolute crisis following US intervention over the past 50 years. Do I need to point out which nations they are? Do I really? As for Kuwait, thank the lord you stepped in there. Although they have public beheadings and one of the worst human rights records on the planet, especially with regard to women, at least they sell you guys cheap oil. A connection? Surely not.

--Imagine that isolationists in the US had won the debate over WW2 and there had been no US military intervention in Europe; would the world be more or less demonic if the Nazi or Soviet empires had endured until today?

Yeah. That way the US wouldn't have been able to test out its new exciting nuclear weapon toy on the civilians of Japan. That would have been a real shame. Or does Japan not count?

--Tell me about the demonic control exerted by the US over you personally. How does it work? What makes it "demonic?"

That would be the exploitation of the world's poor for the gain of the world's rich... I have to live in a world which pretends children don't die of starvation whilst the rich select new golden bath fixtures. And there's little (more than I do already) I can do to change this.

Great post man. You're wise.

 

[Azih]

My only point is that you cannot hold him up as being representative of Iraqis or as representing validation to the *insane* ramblings of Guileless.

I'm holding him up as an Iraqi Shia. And being much more representative of the thoughts of a pretty specific group of Iraqis then either you or Che. Dammit!

 

[Azih]

Also it's obvious that he's not aware of many many things about Iraq no matter how he claims that he's relatives are there (plus we don't know many things about them -are they poor are they rich connected with american interests etc etc.). It's like Firest0rm hates more the Sunnites who afterall are his people than the invading power which murdered thousands more than Saddam ever did. At least Saddam cared for his country and it's economy unlike the new puppets which will certainly approve the ridiculous humiliating for Iraq and most important, illegal oil contracts USA has made.

...

WHAT?

 

[Folder]

I'm holding him up as an Iraqi Shia. And being much more representative of the thoughts of a pretty specific group of Iraqis then either you or Che. Dammit!

*holds head in hands*