Printable View
True. The 9/11 wasn't justified either, but given the circumstances, it was more likely and understandable. I'm sure you agree that a naked woman doesn't belong to a mensroom and she's probably more likely to be raped than elsewhere. Using common sense isn't forbidden to anybody.Quote:
Originally Posted by donKey jote
Lets see, Eki seems to think America is the bain of all evil, or at least, his arguments would lead someone to think that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by studiose
AS for which nations are less committed to human rights and freedoms of their citizen through monitoring and "spying" on their own citizens, I suspect there are lots. Some democracies have laws and rights to intercept through wire taps and email surveillance at a level that would shock you. Canadians have less rights on paper for a lot of this than Americans do, even with the Patriot act. The fact remains that many western nations have a surveillance apparatus that can be used on its own citizens for many reasons. Police forces conduct wire taps and survelliance all the time for various reasons. That said, most have laws and rights also for the citizen that are still respected and my comments were in rebuttals to SOD's comments. His assertion that the US spies on its own people looking good on America gives me the idea he is naive to how much survelliance we all live under. I dislike it but very few western nations have put as much effort into the rights of its own citizens through the last few years as the Yanks have. Their civil liberties rights crusaders in the form of the ACLU are far more principled and determined to define and protect those rights then you would realize.
Most western nations will have and override their constitution to protect the state. In the US, I suggest there is more overrides and hurdles to infringe on human rights than in most nations....
You tell me how the Iraq war has stopped the suffering, or even improved world's economy? You say under Saddam's regime 20,000 Iraqis were killed yearly, the UN says violence killed 34,000 Iraqis last year. According to opinion polls, majority of Iraqis say they had it better under Saddam.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
The fact you had to have that pointed out to your Eki makes me wonder.
9/11 was the act of a man who felt that to kill the infidel Americans in their homeland was to make things better for the people of the middle east. He felt it is better to kill infidels in a jihad against America then to reform and make leaders in the Middle East respect and care for the people. Bin Laden does not believe in human rights, he only believes in the right of Islam to rule the world. He is NOT the leader of the islamic world, but he thinks he should be. He would impose the kind of tyranny on the world that Saddam, Hitler and Stalin would if left unopposed. THose who refuse to see this cant complain when it happens to them.
There was NO right reason to attack the US. You condone the thinking behind this while condemning the act Eki. IT is condoning the rapist again.....Regardless of where you think the US "Belongs" it does not in any way justify any terrorist attack on the US.
The US was in that part of the world because Saddam wont leave his neighbours alone, and THAT if I am not mistaken was because the UN knows that the UK and the US were the only nations willing to spend their money, send their soldiers there and do the job of enforcing the "cease fire" following the war to libreate Kuwait. Again, Saddam does something, the US reacts. IF Saddam was a great humanitarian, the US is not in the Middle East in any real capacity. Until the Kuwaiti conflict, they were only there in a civilian capacity helping improve the technology of oil field extraction. The Military of the US was NOT allowed to be in Saudi Arabia until Saddam invaded Kuwait and were massing on the Saudi Border. This gave the King Fahd the willies, and he invited the US in to protect his nation. Notice they are out of there now, but this was the flimsy premise Bin Laden used to attack the US.
You cannot keep condoning the acts of terrorists by saying the US deserved it. You are right back in the men's room when you do that Eki...
They were in that part of the world well before Saddam had any power at all, they even helped Saddam into power and supported him in his war against his neighbour Iran.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Show me the polls.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
I didn't say the war was a perfect solution. I will tell you also that if 34000 have died in the violence, it should be noted almost that many were dying every year. How many died when he invaded Kuwait and then were killed trying to defend their occupation of that nation? How many died because he invaded Iran? How many a year was he killing just by "keeping" the country in check? How many Kurds did the UN have to feed and help along with NGO's and the US military when the Gulf war ended?? How much suffereing did this man cause in the last 30 years? I can tell you this much, it is WAY more than 34000 since the war to remove him was commenced. What is more, it isn't the Americans doing the killing anymore, it is Baathist remnants, Iranian insurgents and Shiite radicals doing the killing. Also something called "Al Quaida" in Iraq. If the American Army was the sole reason they were dying, your arguments would hold water. However, the US is losing their own now trying to stop this. You want an oppressive dictator to preserve life? Oh boy Eki, this is why I have so much disdain for your arguments. You would justify anyone to live in a situation like this to keep some peace?
Regardless of why the Americans invaded, in 10 years I suspect Iraq is a LOT better off. Saddam would have passed on the torch to Uday and Qusay, and nothing much would have changed for the better, even if they decided terrortorial ambitions beyond their borders were not a good idea. NO for the last 30 years it was proven that Saddam had no scruples in what he would do. In MY world, we are better off with him gone. In your world, he would be in power so it wouldnt' offend your princples. That is the difference, you condone the actions of these people, I deplore them.
Yes, they did, Iran is not a friend of the US either. Iran really isn't any different than Saddam's Iraq on a lot of levels. The US made a bad decision to back Saddam as the lesser of two evils. That however was not George Bush's decision. What is more, where were the Americans actually holding ground and putting troops on the ground in the Middle East for purposes of occupation? WHERE? Did it ever occur to you the factor of the Americans being willing to intercede to protect oil producing powers and the flow of oil on the free market is what has kept the peace in this part of the world for as long as it had been outside of Saddam?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Did it ever occur to you if the US doesn't try to protect the free sale of oil on a free market basis, no one's interests save a dictator trying to control the oil field would gain? The world's economy runs on oil. WW2 was won because of the control of oil. Saddam's terrortorial ambitions were based on controllling the oil. The Americans make lots of mistakes, but when they realized this dog was rabid, they made the decision to put him down. You would just hope he wouldn't bite you Eki. That is the ostrich defense. It didn't work so well for Neville Chamberlain either.....
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...ll-cover_x.htmQuote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Poll: Iraqis out of patience
By Cesar G. Soriano and Steven Komarow,USA TODAY
BAGHDAD — Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup
By Khalid Mohammed, AP
The nationwide survey, the most comprehensive look at Iraqi attitudes toward the occupation, was conducted in late March and early April. It reached nearly 3,500 Iraqis of every religious and ethnic group.
The poll shows that most continue to say the hardships suffered to depose Saddam Hussein were worth it. Half say they and their families are better off than they were under Saddam. And a strong majority say they are more free to worship and to speak. (Related item: Key findings)
But while they acknowledge benefits from dumping Saddam a year ago, Iraqis no longer see the presence of the American-led military as a plus. Asked whether they view the U.S.-led coalition as "liberators" or "occupiers," 71% of all respondents say "occupiers."
That figure reaches 81% if the separatist, pro-U.S. Kurdish minority in northern Iraq is not included. The negative characterization is just as high among the Shiite Muslims who were oppressed for decades by Saddam as it is among the Sunni Muslims who embraced him.
The growing negative attitude toward the Americans is also reflected in two related survey questions: 53% say they would feel less secure without the coalition in Iraq, but 57% say the foreign troops should leave anyway. Those answers were given before the current showdowns in Fallujah and Najaf between U.S. troops and guerrilla fighters.
The findings come as the U.S. administration is struggling to quell the insurgency and turn over limited sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government by the end of June. Interviews this week in Baghdad underscored the findings.
"I'm not ungrateful that they took away Saddam Hussein," says Salam Ahmed, 30, a Shiite businessman. "But the job is done. Thank you very much. See you later. Bye-bye."
'I would shoot ... right now'
Bearing the brunt of Iraqis' ill feeling: U.S. troops. The most visible symbol of the occupation, they are viewed by many Iraqis as uncaring, dangerous and lacking in respect for the country's people, religion and traditions.
Interviews were conducted between March 22 and April 2, with the exception of the governate of Sulaymaniya where interviews ran through April 9. All interviews were conducted in person in the respondent’s home, with an average interview length of 70 minutes. The cooperation rate — the percentage of those contacted who agreed to be interviewed — was 98%.
Two of the three governates in the predominantly Kurdish region, which has its own administrative agencies and has been largely independent from Baghdad for the past decade, did not participate in the poll. To have a full representation of Kurdish views in the poll, additional interviews in the third governate, Sulaymaniya, were conducted.
The margin of sampling error for the poll is +/- two percentage points.
The insurgents, by contrast, seem to be gaining broad acceptance, if not outright support. If the Kurds, who make up about 13% of the poll, are taken out of the equation, more than half of Iraqis say killing U.S. troops can be justified in at least some cases. But attacks against Iraqi police officers, who are U.S.-trained, are strongly condemned by the Iraqi people.
The Bush administration has contended that the growing resistance, which has killed at least 115 Americans this month, is the work of isolated cells of former regime members or religious fanatics, often from outside Iraq.
Iraqis interviewed in Baghdad say ordinary people have lost patience with the U.S. effort to crush the insurgency and rebuild Iraq.
"I would shoot at the Americans right now if I had the chance," says Abbas Kadhum Muia, 24, who owns a bicycle shop in Sadr City, a Shiite slum of 2 million people in Baghdad that was strongly anti-Saddam and once friendly to the Americans. "At the beginning ... there were no problems, but gradually they started to show disrespect (and) encroach on our rights, arresting people."
Sabah Yeldo, a Christian who owns a liquor store across town, says American failures have left the capital with higher crime and less-reliable services, including electricity. That is "making everybody look back and seriously consider having Saddam back again instead of the Americans."
In the multiethnic Baghdad area, where a Gallup Poll last summer of 1,178 residents permits a valid comparison, only 13% of the people now say the invasion of Iraq was morally justifiable. In the 2003 poll, more than twice that number saw it as the right thing to do.
Americans regard their men and women in uniform as liberators who are trying to help Iraq. But the Iraqis now see them as a threat and focus their anger on them.
"When they pass by on the street, we are curious, so we go out to look and they immediately point their gun at you," says Muia, the bicycle shop owner.
Except for the Kurds, such feelings are widely held. For example:
Two-thirds say soldiers in the U.S.-led coalition make no attempt to keep ordinary Iraqis from being killed or wounded during exchanges of gunfire.
58% say the soldiers conduct themselves badly or very badly.
60% say the troops show disrespect for Iraqi people in searches of their homes, and 42% say U.S. forces have shown disrespect toward mosques.
46% say the soldiers show a lack of respect for Iraqi women.
Only 11% of Iraqis say coalition forces are trying hard to restore basic services such as electricity and clean drinking water.
The Defense Department, which was shown the survey results Wednesday, said it doesn't respond to polls. But in a statement, it noted that Iraqis say their lives are getting better and said that the fact the poll could be taken indicated increased freedom in Iraq.
Secondhand information
That negative opinion of the behavior of the troops rarely is based on direct contact. Iraq is a country the size of California with a population of 25 million. Many areas are sparsely patrolled. Only 7% in the poll say they based their opinions on personal experience.
Instead, Iraqis get their information from others. For about a third, it's pan-Arabic television such as the Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya satellite news channels. The networks frequently show scenes of U.S. forces shooting into Iraqi neighborhoods in hot spots such as Fallujah, an anti-American stronghold in the center of the country. (Related poll results: Baghdad: Then and now)
Although most Iraqis watch the local, U.S.-sponsored broadcast television station, which doesn't require a satellite dish, Iraqis in the poll say the Arab satellite networks are the most trusted and break the hottest stories. Few Iraqis trust Western networks such as CNN and the BBC.
More news is spread through that oldest delivery system: marketplace chatter. In the rumor mill, interviews indicate, every confrontation between Americans and Iraqis is portrayed as an assault on the Iraqi people, not on just a few lawless insurgents.
Jalal Abbas, 20, a student in Baghdad, says it's widely believed "that when soldiers search houses, they steal gold and money. And in our houses, people are taking special (precautions) to hide their money and gold for fear of them being stolen by U.S. soldiers."
Najem Aboud Debib, 37, like many Shiites, says he feels deep disappointment now. The Shiites opposed Saddam, whose regime was dominated by Sunnis. A year ago, they welcomed the Americans and the freedom to exercise their brand of Islam without repression. Now, Aboud Debib says, "I'm sure they have no morals. ...They are something like Saddam Hussein. We are suffering under the same situation."
He'd welcome an American withdrawal but says he's sure U.S. troops will remain in Iraq for a long time. "The trouble is they (U.S. forces) cannot leave now and leave the job undone. They must go and complete the job and try to win the people again."
The negative opinion of the occupation does not mean most Iraqis want to see Saddam back in power. He is in U.S. custody, and four out of five Iraqis view him negatively, according to the poll. A little more than half have a negative view of President Bush.
Marines patrolling around Fallujah this week say they can feel the Iraqi anger every day, even when the two sides aren't shooting.
Marine Lance Cpl. Wes Monks, 23, of Springfield, Ore., says that as he drives around the restive, mostly Sunni city, he sees Iraqis with a knowing, "sarcastic smile. You see it every day. ... We're always the last one to find out when we run over a mine."
"I can see their point of view," says Marine Lance Cpl. Mathew Leifi, 20, of Orange, Calif. "If anyone rolled up on my street, I'd be pissed, too."
Kurds, the ethnic minority most closely allied with the United States, show strong support for Americans in the poll. About 97% say the invasion did more good than harm. And their pro-U.S. stance is obvious on other issues.
Everywhere else in Iraq, it's a different story. Not surprisingly, the Sunni strongholds that benefited most from Saddam's regime are the most negative in their opinion of the new Iraq. Fewer than 20% of people in those areas call the war's outcome positive.
Iraqis expected huge improvements in all aspects of their economy within weeks of Saddam's overthrow, and most say there have been at least some improvements. But a year after Bush declared major hostilities in Iraq over,
Very good Eki, read it all. They ARE GLAD SADDAM IS GONE!!!! Thank you for proving my point. A lot of it is criticism on how the Americans are handling the peace. Again, something I have been not a fan of either.
Still, the premise that Iraq would be better off under Saddam is not proven by your post here.
You should READ the whole article Eki. There is more points proving what I have been saying then you can imagine.
IT says to me that most Iraqi's have little day to day contact with the Americans, so while they dont' like the fact they are there still, no one disputes that they have a chance at a better life now. Kurd's are unhappy with the Americans but I dont' see any point of view in here that says to me they want Saddam back either. The headline is highly misleading. They may be out of patience, they may not like the US there, but until the constant attacks on minority groups, Iraqi police and military units stops, the Americans are being asked to stay by the Iraqi government. If you think this isn't the reality, fine, but understand when Bush said they would now leave if asked to, Maliki didn't say for the US to get out.
Your premise has always been that Iraq would be better off with out having Saddam being removed. This article says despite all the crap that is going on, and how they don't like the Americans there, they aren't asking for Saddam to come back and they do feel they have a shot at a better life now. My argument all along.....
That was just one poll interpeted by one newspaper, here's another:
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/inde...m/itemID/14282
Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research
Iraqis Say They Were Better Off Under Hussein
January 3, 2007
(Angus Reid Global Monitor) - Many adults in Iraq believe the coalition effort has been negative, according to a poll by the Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies and the Gulf Research Center. 90 per cent of respondents think the situation in their country was better before the U.S.-led invasion.
The coalition effort against Saddam Hussein’s regime was launched in March 2003. At least 3,000 American soldiers have died during the military operation, and more than 22,500 troops have been wounded in action.
There has been no official inquiry on the actual number of Iraqi casualties. A volunteer group of British and U.S. academics and researchers—known as Iraq Body Count (IBC)—estimates that more than 52,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed during the military intervention.
In December 2005, Iraqi voters renewed their National Assembly. In May 2006, Shiite United Iraqi Alliance member Nouri al-Maliki officially took over as prime minister.
The survey was conducted in November 2006, before the publication of the Iraq Study Group’s findings in the United States, and Hussein’s execution for crimes against humanity. Late last month, Al-Maliki called on the "followers of the ousted regime" to "reconsider their stance as the door is still open to anyone who has no innocent blood on his hands to help in rebuilding Iraq."
Polling Data
Do you feel the situation in the country is better today or better before the U.S.-led invasion?
Better today
5%
Better before
90%
Not sure
5%
Source: Iraq Centre for Research and Strategic Studies / Gulf Research Center
Methodology: Face-to-face interviews with 2,000 Iraqi adults in Baghdad, Anbar and Najaf, conducted in late November 2006. Margin of error is 3.1 per cent.
one line in there cracks me up. Just slightly more than half have a negative view of Bush. Heck, even in Iraq, he has more support than he does in the US and half the free world, and this in a nation where he is supposed to be HATED????? Good lord, those people in Iraq will be ok, if self righteous fools quit trying to stop those who would protect their freedoms instead condoning those who would take them away.
I believe another quote from a Shiite in there is: "Najem Aboud Debib, 37, like many Shiites, says he feels deep disappointment now. The Shiites opposed Saddam, whose regime was dominated by Sunnis. A year ago, they welcomed the Americans and the freedom to exercise their brand of Islam without repression. Now, Aboud Debib says, "I'm sure they have no morals. ...They are something like Saddam Hussein. We are suffering under the same situation."
He'd welcome an American withdrawal but says he's sure U.S. troops will remain in Iraq for a long time. "The trouble is they (U.S. forces) cannot leave now and leave the job undone. They must go and complete the job and try to win the people again."
The negative opinion of the occupation does not mean most Iraqis want to see Saddam back in power. He is in U.S. custody, and four out of five Iraqis view him negatively, according to the poll. A little more than half have a negative view of President Bush."
Wow....What does that say?? Did you also want me to quote how 97% of
Kurds are glad he is gone? How about the quote of the American soldiers stating they know why Iraqi's are unhappy? Still doesn't stop the Americans from trying to do the right thing does it? How about THAT??
Eki, posted that, you just as well should have run up a white flag for half your arguments outright. Damn right it is a mess and damn right the Americans are not the best people to deal with this, but Iraq is better off without Saddam, and they know it. IT is YOU who would condemn them to live under his rule because you know better.....
Thank you for a nice article, for while it says things in Iraq are lousy, in time, I know damned well they are better off in the future for this suffering now.
I am glad it wouldn't be up to you to save my nation if required Eki, you would condemn everyone to live in misery....in the name of peace of course. I believe the Communist rulers of the USSR and Cuba used similar rationale to explain the great lack of rights and consumer goods. It is for the greater good.....
YA RIGHT
Eki, did it occur to you that the freedom to speak one's mind in a poll is one not given by Saddam? Do you not see the dichotomy here? This was a nation that had 99% of the people elect Saddam if he was to be believed. No, your first article states a lot of my points nicely.
The fact that 90% of the people there can bitch and complain that they think they were better off under Saddam says they have that freedom of choice, they didn't before, and no American polling firm was going to be allowed to judge their feelings before. What also should be added that a poll is a foreign concept to people not accustomed to having to state to a pollster their feellings. Before, they spouted the company line. You think they are 100% ready to trust some pollster?
Unlike people in democracies, people who were living in fear never learn their right of freedom of speech over night. Heck, hostages often speak well of their captors long after the ordeal is over. That I think is a function of what is happening here. Regardless how how this poll reads, I would bet in 5 years a drastically different result will be in the offing....
As far as I am concerned Eki, there is little point in my continuing. This article you posted which can be reached by this link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...ll-cover_x.htm
covers a lot of ground, but much of what is in here is EXACTLY what I have been trying to tell you.
Iraq is better off now. No matter how bad it is now, it in many ways was much worse before. Iraq is going to have a Hussein less future, and while they may not thank the US, they may HATE the US for being there, you still have Not proven that they are worse off in the long run. You would condemn them to live under Saddam and his sons for the next 40 years.....I wouldn't.
I am done...
Please tell me, oh Mark, how you know it, for I, though I wish it, am of little faith. :( :\Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Studiose, read Eki's first posting at this link: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...ll-cover_x.htm
It says much of what I am saying.
Studiose, I object to this assertion that living under a regime that would enslave and kill its own people to the extent that Saddam's did is a better option. IT is NOT an option for people to live in fear every day because their "leader" feels the need to keep everyone scared to death. Not to mention throw their lives away in useless wars, or to torture and kill dissidents. You and I may disagee on a lot, but that right to disagree is one that those of us who live in freedom can have. In a free world, you have options. You succeed or fail often on your own initiative and you in a free world have the right to voice your opinion when things are not going well. In Iraq, the only future they would have if Saddam was left alone was more wars, more suffering, more torture, and more wasting of the nation's wealth on Saddam's palaces, his military and his secret police.
Studiose, I like some of your points, I like your feelings and concerns. I understand completely why you think why you do. You at least are willing to debate me with some cogent points. Just undertand my impassioned defense for the freedom of the people of Iraq is also not much different than your concerns. Unlike some people though, I understand that freedom sometimes has to be defended and fought for. If more nations stood up to thugs and regimes who would use human beings for slaves to their own glory, I suspect we would have a hell of a lot less Saddam Hussein's to deal with.
It is far too late to fight all the regimes. I think that battle should have been fought back in 1945, but war is horrid and people had more than enough of it by 1945. That said, dictators are bullies pure and simple, and most bullies collapse when confronted with a quiet resolve that is backed with the factor that you wont stand for their crap no more.
Estonia and the Baltic states are free mainly because the USSR collapsed. It collapsed because it was wrong, and it collapsed a lot faster because they tried to outspend the US in an arms race under the misconception that the US was to invade. When Gorbachev realized it wasn't going to win this fight without killing his nation's economy, he realized the sham of what was happening and tried to reform it. Of course, no dictatorship survives without the threat of force to keep the people down and it collapased. Indirectly, your nation is free because people realized the best way to do deal with the USSR is to not let them have their own way. It was a war with without causualties and thank god it was, but it doesn't change the fact it was won because the USSR knew that if pushed too far, the US would react.
It is the same in Iraq. A dictatorship refused to live up to its obligations to the world, and pushed the wrong people too far. Unlike Russia, Saddam didn't voluntarily dismantle his war machine, he dared Bush to take him out. You have to stand up for the principle of freedom, or people like Saddam will take it from you.
To take the argument Iraq would be better off under Saddam is as silly as me saying it is unfortunate the USSR is gone, it kept Estonia in check. It is NEVER good that a nation lives in fear of its own government to the point where there is no freedom. The citizens of any nation are not there to serve the state, the state should be there to serve and protect them. Those who condone nations that don't follow the rule of the latter should be forced to live in the former.
Saddam is gone because he pushed too far. As he always did. He answered to no one but the US military and Allies in 1992. When given an option to live under the rules of the UN resolutions, he forgot the spanking of 1992 and challenged Dubya. Again, he was wrong, and the world, and Iraq down the road will be in a better place. It is better to have a shot at freedom now, then wait 40 years for the next dictator to die...
Mark, I know you're a good guy and I certainly agree with you more than I agree with Eki, but when comparing the USSR to Iraq, please keep in mind that the USSR was brought down by military pressure, not by military invasion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
As I've said before, to my mind we are (or should be) discussing methods, not principles. We share the principles. Even you and Eki do.
Studiose, the USSR was not brought down by invasion, you are correct, but it would be facetious to say it happened because there was no threat of invasion either. To characterize the pressure the US was putting on the USSR at that time, it was not the threat of outright invasion, but it was the knowledge that the USSR's whole raison d'etre was to stand up to the US. So they had to spend, to stand up. In their own minds, they couldn't let the Americans win any battle of armanents. Of course, what is not said is that they didn't have to do any such thing in a rational world, but the leaders of the USSR until Gorbachev came along were not RATIONAL. They ruined the economy spending wildly to keep up to the US. This is one reason the USSR collapsed.
Another reason of course is the immense courage shown by two Polish gentlemen who showed the world what it is to stand up against oppression and show that freedom is a human right. One was Pope John Paul 2 and the other was Lech Walesa. The courage they showed forced the Polish government to its knee's and by default, the USSR was forced to see a reality. They couldn't enforce any longer the fiction that this was all being done for the good of the people. The oppression, the confiscation of private property to benefit the state, the supposive goal of enlightment as a good communist to do without certain rights until the battle against the capitalist lackeys and so on. You know it better than I do, you lived it. IF the rest of the outside world did not condemn the sham that is the USSR, people inside the iron curtain would not have the confidence to know they had support in the outside world. That same argument I use in the case of Saddam and Iraq. Sometimes the oppressed have to know that the outside world will help when it can, and in the case of the US in Iraq, they did invade.
There is much said about Bush's reasons and motives,and I have not always argued that he was given or acting on the right information, and i have not argued that they have not handled the "peace" well, it was my reason for not being ready to support 100% the invasion That said, they did it, and Iraq is improving. Even in an article quoted by Eki as proof it doesn't work, you read how people rarely see the Americans while condeming the invasion. Then in the next line see how they are happier Saddam is gone. The message is very mixed and that says to me a lot of it is propaganda being used to make things look worse than they actually are.
You feel we should be discussing methods, not princples. My principles are basic. If people have a shot at a better life through their own innovation, their own democratically elected government, then they are going to be in the end, better off. It may not look it now, but that is how I feel it is. As for the method's, I agree 99% of the time wars should be avoided, but I will never argue they should never happen. Sometimes military actions are the card that allows the diplomacy to work.
Studiose, you also do understand and have not made facetious claims as silly as some on here that Bush should be tried as a war criminal. That, I think is the one argument I will never put up with. Bush for all his faults has gone out of his way to order the US military to spare civilian life where they could when the invasion was on, and it cost the US Army casulties. The orders were followed because the US military knows darn well they have to have principles to preserve life when there are civilian non-combantants involved. Bush maybe was the leader of a nation invading Iraq against the UN's wishes at the time,and you can argue the legalities of that, but I wish some would please spare me the rhetoric that Bush is a criminal. His orders cost American lives in that he forbid the US military to attack mosques even if half of Iraq was shooting at the US army from one. The Americans have in their own clumsy way tried to do the right thing. It is a HUGE strecth of the truth to say that he is in the same place as Saddam, yet I bet before long, someone will again make that claim.......
An interesting comment coming from someone who has labeled anyone arguing against you as being 'trendy left wingers'. A fairly broad statement wouldn't you say. I have never said that Saddam was not evil, however I have and always will question the reasons why Iraq was picked on and not say Saudi Arabia where it has been proved that most of the money supporting Al Quaida comes from.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
There are lots of nasty dictatorships in the world, however the us is only interested in getting involved when it is in their economic interest to.
Why haven't they invaded Burma for example, perhaps because The Peoples Republic of China is a major backer of the Junta there? They did try to organise a coup against Chavez however that came back to bite them.
Bush is a stooge, he had to finish his daddies war, even though as I have stated previously that US told Saddam that they would not get involved if Iraq invaded Kuwait.
That fine specimen of US womanhood Lindy England joined the military because she couldn't get a job doing anything else. This I believe is a major reason why a lot of people join the forces. Then they get upset when the get posted overseas and run the risk of getting killed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
Seems to be lots of cases arising where the military are blaming incidents like the ones outlined in the following article as being perpetrated by insurgents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
How many have been covered up?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...063000495.html
"In June, seven Marines and a Navy corpsman were charged with murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of a crippled man in Hamdaniya, west of Baghdad. Residents there said the soldiers planted a rifle and a shovel near the victim's body to make it look as if he had been burying roadside bombs."
"Later in June, three soldiers were charged with murdering three Iraqi detainees in U.S. custody and threatening to kill another soldier who saw the incident. And last week, two Pennsylvania National Guardsmen were charged with murder in the shooting death of an unarmed man in the western city of Ramadi and with trying to cover up the crime."
If anyone is interested in reading what is going on in Baghdad from a locals point of view I can highly recommend the following blog written by a very well educated Iragi female.
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
IN your last paragraph quoted, there are two soldiers who are being CHARGED by the US authorities. In Saddam's Iraq, they would either get no trial and a bullet, or a promotion depending on the whims of Saddam. Hardly an argument for Iraq being a better place under Saddam.Quote:
Originally Posted by cossie16
Of course everyone who joins the military in the US is NOT Lindy England. But taking one example out of 150000 soldiers and painting them all the same works for your agenda. Problem is, it isn't indicative of the truth of why many join the Military. Also add in the fact that Lindy is in jail for her role in the humiliation of the Iraqi prisoners held at Abu Gahrab. The US government did NOT order nor condone it. Little details like that add some structure and validity to my argument of course that the Americans are trying to do the right thing. Very few military operations of this size and scope don't have a few people crossing outside the lines of human decency; how you judge the society that produced them is how they are dealt with.Quote:
Originally Posted by cossie16
I never said you did say Saddam was not evil Cossie, but the excuses people such as Eki have made to keep him in power have been astounding at times, and there are many who have opposed me that have ignored his excesses in their arguments as much as possible. I am glad you show concern for Saudi Arabia's tremendous oppression, and Burma's ridiculous human rights record. How about those lovely Chinese in Tibet? Their backing of North Korea? Sudan's oppressed black minority that is being tormented by the Janijiweed in Darfur?Quote:
Originally Posted by cossie16
No, they are valid points, I have been one of the few people to bring them up and yet I am the rabid right winger. No, I think the US military could have taken care of Burma and Saudi Arabia before finishing breakfast but what would the world say? IF they take this much heat for taking out a vicious thug who continued to jerk around the UN and anyone else he could lay his hands on, how much would the Islamic world condemn them deposing an autocratic ruling family like the Saudi's run? Going into Burma would be aggraivating the Chinese to the point of war. Ditto for North Korea. Iraq had no real backing, and they were aggravating enough, so Bush went in there. Finishing Bush Daddies war? Hey, you cant suck and blow all the time Cossie, for I suspect you are dondemning the US for NOT following the UN in staying out this time, yet Bush Sr. did obey the UN in the last war. He gave them the options and opportunity to save Saddam's sorry @ss. You cant have it both ways, but as I have seen, there are some on here that try.
I have been 100% consistent in my views for the last two weeks. I am against the death penalty in almost all cases, but in this one, it had to be carried out. I was against the invasion of Iraq only based on the fact I think a better argument wasn't used, and there was no firm plan on rebulding Iraq. I have been 100% consistent to never condone thuggery in the name of "justice" but I also understand nation states do things that make no sense if not taken in the larger context. I have been 100% consistent that war is a terrible option and almost never is justified, but if there is no option war, diplomacy with people less than honest as leaders (truly dishonest, not a guy who lied on raising your taxes who you can vote out next year) wont work. 1938 proved that, as did Stalin's pact with Hitler (of course, those two deserve a place in hell, but Hitler even stabbed Stalin in the back, showing there is no honour among thieves). Iraq was singled out because they could not be trusted to be ressponsible to anyone, their neighbours, the UN, their own people. Saddam pushed all the right buttons to give someone as simple minded and determined as George W Bush enough rope to hang him with (no pun intended). Saddam could have just let the UN do their thing, and calmed down, and he would still be in power today.
As for Chavez and the supposed coup, I think a lot of that is Venezuelan hot air and fiction. Chavez has been making hay out of any thing he can that makes the US look like bad guys, while selling them 14% of the US's imported oil needs. If the US was really the bad guys you say they are, they would have invaded Venezuela. Of course, they wouldn't. My argument has always been elected leaders, no matter how obnoxious have no worries from invasion from the US. Take away the criminally stupid intervention of the CIA against Allende in Chile in the 70's, and the US has basically let any criticism of their nation go until someone like Saddam decides to back it up with threats, supporting Hamas and other groups, and invading Kuwait. No, at some point, the most ardent opponents of the US who have any respect for democracy have to say Iraq really went out of their way to aggravate the US. It was not an unwarranted and unjust sudden decision. It was over 11 years and two presidents in the making....
I was too late to edit the above post, however Riverbend has had her writings published, more information here:
http://www.marionboyars.co.uk/Amy%20...20Burning.html
A second book has been published, info from Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Baghdad-Burnin.../dp/1558614893
Hi Mark:
Well, the cowards continue to pour negative points on me for disagreeing with their support of their beloved dictator, Saddam, the Butcher of Bagdad. I see from your "red" rep, the cowards have been after you too. Well, we have a phrase that covers this. Perhaps you've encountered it in your travels into the lower 48. So to E**, I say, f*** you if you can't take a joke.
:rotflmao:
P.S., It was once believed that if you put 1,000,000 monkeys in a room with typewriters, they would produce the great works, given enough time. The Internet proves that notion wrong. With only a few exceptions here, those monkeys cannot come up with an original thought. I'm glad to see you and Gannex are persevering here, but I am tired of slumming.
When are you coming down for that drink? We're into winter now - we had a low of 65, but it bounded back to 81 in the early afternoon.
:beer:
:vodka: (I know there's no smiley for vodka, but I can dream.
I will read it and probably not disagree with thing being crappy on the ground in Baghdad. I however put the blame on the religious and political rivalry between Sunni and Shiite down for most of the misery. If the US soldiers didn't spend most of their time trying to keep some sort of peace, life would go a lot easier. Also understand that the Kurd's and Shiites in the south are doing ok, and are getting on with their lives. All of Iraq is not like Baghdad. SO I will read this blog...and see what it has to say. I wont likely disagree with here feelings, they are hers, and she lives there, not me. I also have stated this many times, that it is easier for the arm chair critics to condemn people to live in Iraq when Saddam was running it, but this lady wouldn't be running a blog on the net under his Iraq either. The right to complain and participate in the world of public ideas is one they have now, so I welcome this blog. Some would tell you Cossie that Saddam's right to oppress these people over rides the rights of the people to have a shot at freedom, no matter what.Quote:
Originally Posted by cossie16
I wont get into specifics, but at a quick glance, her blog is filled with a lot of thoughts that go way beyond the common Iraqi on the street. Her education in English says to me she was one of the privledged few before Saddam fell. Her account of Saddam's "lynching" is interesting, for at no time has she said anything about how she felt about Saddam's regime in a negative fashion.
I feel she is an interesting voice, one I have book marked but her view is not the definative view of Iraq. Nor is it inaccurate either. It is her view, and while it backs many of the arguments of some of my opponents, the fact it is being voiced in such a manner as a "blog" was not available to anyone in Iraq 4 years ago. Also much of what is going on is being done by Iraqi's. The Americans are giving them that freedom to screw up I guess. If she wants no sectarian violence on the streets, I guess the Americans would have to crack down so tight no one would have any rights? She would like that? I suspect not.
No, an interesting blog, I will read it, and see what she thinks, but as to her biases and views, I take it with some measure of skepticism. Her education and use of English and her opinion says to me she is a Sunni who had been part of the privledged few. She reminds me of an Iranian immigrant I know in Canada who spoke well of the Shah. He thought the country was ok under the Shah too, but as the Revolution in 1979 proved, there was something seriously wrong on the ground in that nation. It is sad that that revolution that started by the grassroots has ended up in a theocratic dictatorship.
That rivalry existed long before the invasion, it was well known and this kind of outcome was predicted, yet they decided to invade.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
I remember the "Baghdad Blogger" who reported from Baghdad while it was bombed in 2003:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
http://weblogs.about.com/od/bestofbl.../salampax2.htm
On How Salam Pax Started Blogging:
It wasn't until 2001 when the Internet became available in Iraq.
Even by 2002, when I got home access to the Internet, it was considered unusual. And, in the beginning, I didn't know what to do with it.
Then, I discovered weblogs. It's good because they seem like small windows in to how people are living and thinking in the outside world.
I also realized that there's nothing coming from the Arab world. So, I thought I'd start one. To give something back to the blogging community.
Also, it seems like a nice way of communicating with people.
I agree with you, cossie, that there are some who join the US armed forces because they cannot get jobs anywhere else. This is becoming more the case today than it was five years ago, because recruitment standards are dropping. The pressure to keep manning this badly conceived and dreadfully executed war are taking their toll on the quality of the force, I will agree. But this does not shake my conviction that, on the whole, the US forces are made up of decent people.Quote:
Originally Posted by cossie16
Lynndie England was, of course, a disgrace, but I do not put all the blame on her shoulders. I think the leadership must share responsibility for the disgusting way she and her partner in crime behaved. They say a fish stinks from the head, so it is instructive to see what the head of this particular fish, the army, was doing.
First, Bush and his advisers, relying on legal loopholes, declared that the Geneva Convention was not applicable to non-uniformed persons captured in the theatre of war, very broadly defined. Secretary Rumsfeld then cemented in place the impression that the norms of decent treatment should not apply in the Iraqi conflict by his continual statements to the effect that all necessary means should be used to ensure the safety of the troops. Torture, said Rumsfeld, did not include techniques designed to put physical and emotional stress on suspects, and suspects, said the DOD, could be virtually anyone. These messages went to the Generals and down the chain of command. At one point, the CIA complained that the Army had been given TOO MUCH AUTHORITY (!!), that when the agency had pressed for relaxation of the rules of interrogation, they never intended that cabbies in Baghdad would be rounded up and interrogated by privates in Abu Ghraib. The British were highly critical of the cavalier approach to the rules that their American allies were taking in their sector, but all this made no difference to the administration and, through the administration, to the top brass. There were one or two generals who opposed the general drift toward extreme heavy-handedness, notably Lt. Gen. Petraeus, but these were lone voices crying against the wind. Only now, has the wisdom of Petraeus's counsel been acknowledged, but at the time of Lynndie England's atrocities, the atmosphere coming from above was one of condoning, even encouraging, brutal behaviour.
This is why I said, in my earlier post pleading with people not to judge the American forces too harshly, that they are decent, honourable men and women who have been let down by the leadership, badly led, misguided. The boots on the ground are good; the men with the policy decisions in their hands have been awful, and I find it very hard to forgive the top US people for the way they have conducted this war, which could have liberated Iraq, and been a glorious page in the history of the West. Now, all it is is an ugly stain.
Yes, but blogs are very yesterday. They peaked a few years ago, and they are fading. Check the metrics being reported in Wired.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Actually recent studies have shown that the trend of recruiting is much more indicative of avearge demographics than most claim. When viewed based on education, family income, race, and origin, the military is in some cases reversing the trends claimed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gannex
More people from average to above average income and education levels are joining the military now as opposed to those doing so in past years.
Here's a good link.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Nat...y/cda05-08.cfm
I agree with your view that most in the military join for honorable reasons. As a percentage of those serving the people involved in wrongful acts is very small.
Agwiii, I disagree on the role of Blogs. Little Green Footballs and others like it are legitimate in many eyes, for they break stories the Mainstream Media wont touch. The fraudulent claims 60 Minutes made about Bush's National Guard record weeks before the 2004 election illustrate what happens in the hands of the mainstream media if left without someone doing the dirty work.
Blogs and "alternative" media are great sources of information that is often raw and unfiltered. The down side is it is sometimes biased one way or the other, but the plus side is it is that raw quality.
The Blogster in Baghdad must be taken for who she is. She is well educated, speaks English well and is a Sunni. Gee....who would she be VERY close to to have those qualities and not be in jail or being tortured when Saddam was around?? Just a thought....I am not saying what she is describing on the ground isn't happening, as Gannex has stated, it is happening.
Of course this mitigates nothing. Eki crying they should'nt be there is too late. What happens now is always been the contention for me, and it seems like the Americans are still trying to put things right. How successful they may be remains to be seen, but at least there is an effort there.
As for Lynnie England, well as I said before, don't condemn the whole army on the actions of a few hot heads. I bet the victims of the atrocities in that prison 10 years ago would have been happy for the guards to only make them play naked twister. For her actions, England was charged and punished. Gannex is not inaccurate in his criticisms of how things were handled in the upper brass, but again, it wasn't necessarily a open policy that prisoners were to be treated with torture and inhuman conditions. That said, Rumsfeld's attitude seemed to set a tone that gave some officers license to condone this.
Again, show me an army anywhere that doesn't have a few people that will embarass it if given enough rope. Every nation has its thugs and loose cannons, there isn't one in the world that doesn't have a prision of some form. Ergo, odds are some make it into the military. It is the actions that the nation takes after the rules of civility are broken that give you cause for judgement. On this score, I give the Americans a C. That said, a lot of nations on this planet wouldn't get a passing grade, and many wouldn't get a grade because their military hasn't been under the stress that the US Army has felt since this has begun....
While blogging has only reached prominence in the last few years, it was actually invented by the ancient Romans who built a majestic blog in 200 BC from marble, granite and links they stole from the Greeks.
"Blog" itself is short for "weblog," which is short for "we blog because we weren't very popular in high school and we're trying to gain respect and admiration without actually having to be around people."
Creating your own blog is about as easy as creating your own urine, and you're about as likely to find someone else interested in it. One popular technique for building readership is to send e-mail to more well-trafficked blogs offering to exchange links with them. One popular response from those blogs is to laugh derisively and hit the Delete button.
Excerpt from: http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,71720-0.html
:s mokin:
I can think of the sacking of Rome in 387 BC by the Gauls. There were a few other sackings for the next thousand odd years. There are many other examples of the army doing things that upset delicate sensibilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
I remember reading riverbend and salam pax (where's Raed?) right at the beginning, as the bombs were about to start falling on Baghdad. It was the same eary feeling as watching CNN during the first Iraq war.
Just because they're obviously at least as educated as anyone else on the web doesn't mean they're necessarily "Sunni = pro-Saddam".
Do skim through some of their earlier stuff, and see how they evolved as the liberation dragged on.
http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com/
did I say eary?
what a donkey big-eers :p :
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/16/16_3_166.gif
Jote, no doubt some of them do have something to say. I didn't dismiss the blog in question as out of hand, but a lot of her anger was pretty much trying to elicit sympathy almost for Saddam. While I think Maliki's government has botched this entirely, alas it seems pretty much the way a lot of governments in the middle east seem to be run like, that is, full of old scores and sectarian intolerance waiting to be settled.
Until Maliki starts governing Iraq as the President of all the groups that make up Iraq, the problems will continue. That isn't the US's fault, except maybe they should just put the US army in the North with the Kurd's, protect a few key instillations, and let the Shiites and Sunni's work out some issues. It is obvious to me they don't need the US Army to shoot at, they are quite content to kill each other....
Quote:
Originally Posted by agwiii
How many blogs have been published worldwide as books, been nominated for and won prizes in literary competitions?
Baghdad Burning
Girl Blog from Iraq
Riverbend
Note: To all of Riverbend's fans, thank you for your concern about her periodic absence from her blog. As far as we know, she is still in Iraq and writing when she can. If we hear otherwise, we will post it here.
Lettre Ulysses Award for the Art of Literary Reportage
THIRD PRIZE WINNER OF THE LETTRE ULYSSES AWARD FOR THE ART OF REPORTAGE
LONGLISTED FOR 2006 SAMUEL JOHNSON PRIZE FOR NONFICTION
In her riveting weblog, a remarkable young Iraqi woman gives a human face to war and occupation.
In August 2003, the world gained access to a remarkable new voice: a blog written by a 25-year-old Iraqi woman living in Baghdad, whose identity remained concealed for her own protection. Calling herself Riverbend, she offered searing eyewitness accounts of the everyday realities on the ground, punctuated by astute analysis on the politics behind these events.
Riverbend recounts stories of life in an occupied city - of neighbors whose home are raided by U.S. troops, whose relatives disappear into prisons, and whose children are kidnapped by money-hungry militias. The only Iraqi blogger writing from a woman's perspective, she also describes a once-secular city where women are now afraid to leave their homes without head covering and a male escort.
Interspersedwith these vivid snapshots from daily life are Riverbend's analyses of everything from the elusive workings of the Iraqi Governing Council to the torture in Abu Gharib, from the coverage provided by American media and by Al-Jazeera to Bush's State of the Union Speech. Here again, she focuses especially on the fate of women, whose rights and freedoms have fallen victim to rising fundamentalisms in a chaotic post-war society.
With thousands of loyal readers worldwide, the Riverbend blog is recognized around the world as a crucial source of information not available through the mainstream media.
ISBN-10 1-55861-489-3
ISBN-13 978-1-55861-489-5
Publication Date 2005 List Price $14.95
From http://www.feministpress.org/Book/in...55861100869560
Some more stuff from http://www.marionboyars.co.uk/Amy%20...20Burning.html'FOR SALE: IRAQ
For Sale: A fertile, wealthy country with a population of around 25 million…plus around 150,000 foreign troops, and a handful of puppets. Conditions of sale: should be either an American or British corporation. Please contact one of the members of the Governing Council in Baghdad, Iraq, for more information.
In her riveting weblog, a remarkable young Iraqi woman gives a human face to war and occupation. On the 24th of September, 2003, the above entry was posted onto a weblog by an anonymous 25 year old female using the pseudonym ‘Riverbend’. In this hard-hitting journal, she describes the day-to-day realities of life in post-war Iraq, which for her family and neighbours means regular power-cuts, bombings, kidnappings and night-time raids by US soldiers. Including diary entries covering the release of the torture pictures of Abu Ghraib and Bush’s State of the Union Speech as well as a more critical analysis of key players during the war and in its aftermath, Baghdad Burning offers a highly personal narrative on life since the US occupation that is at once disturbing and insightful.
With thousands of loyal readers worldwide, the Riverbend blog is recognized around the world as a crucial source of information not available through the mainstream media.
Riverbend was educated at Baghdad University and worked for a large computer company in Baghdad before the war. She continues to update her journal, found at http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com. She prefers to remain anonymous.
'Feisty and learned: first rate reading for any American who suspects that Fox News may not be telling the whole story.' Kirkus Reviews, 2 May 2005
'passionate, frustrated, sarcastic and sometimes hopeful ...it offers quick takes on events ...from a perspective too often overlooked, ignored or surpressed.' Publishers Weekly, 7 February 2005
'a cross between an underground manifesto and a polished cultural history... With its blend of first-person mouthing off and spirited documentary style, Baghdad Burning offers fair and balanced coverage from inside one of the most rapidly changing - and poorly understood - regions in the world.' Time Out New York, 28 April 2005
'Highly recommended to anyone following the conflict' Library Journal (starred review), 1 April 2005
Baghdad Burning Volume 2 will be published by Marion Boyars in Autumn 2006
Price: £7.99
Format: Paperback, 310 pp
ISBN: 0-7145-3130-8
Publication date: 27 March 2006
One more interesting link on a retired US military man and republican party honcho who tried to hijack Riverbend's blog.
http://www.blogscanada.ca/blog/Perma...3fe64d70b.aspx
A small segment:
Over the past few weeks, an odd campaign has been mounted in the blogosphere. An Iraqi blog, Baghdad Burning, was spoofed by a blogger with opposing political views. Yesterday, the real Baghdad Burning author returned fire. Her first shot against the dirty trickster brought him down.
In a delicious bit of irony, the real Baghdad Burning author is a young Iraqi woman and the fake Baghdad Burning author is a retired US military man and Republican party "Team Leader."