Explosion in Baghdad
IntegraBoy2003
03-17-2004, 02:46 PM
I am sure by now most of you have heard about the Bombing that went off over in baghdad that completly destroyed the Jabal Lebanon Hotel, left a 20 ft deep creator in the road and destryoed buildings near by, not to mention killing people and wounding many more, when will it ever end??? will the USA continue to attempt to bring a democrasy to Iraq? I do not know but if attacks like this keep up, it will be hard to tell
Toksin
03-17-2004, 06:40 PM
The Daily Bombing.
Nothing new.
Nothing new.
DGB454
03-18-2004, 06:08 AM
So Iraq doesn't deserve democracy? The Iraq people don't deserve to choose who their leader is? They should just live under the rule of whatever tyrant comes along? I want us out as much as the next person but you can't just pull out and leave Iraq open to the next lunatic that has the most guns and goons to come along.
The people there do want to be able to choose who their leader is they just don't want America or any other country to choose that leader for them. I believe they should have that choice. Hopefully they will when all is said and done.
The people there do want to be able to choose who their leader is they just don't want America or any other country to choose that leader for them. I believe they should have that choice. Hopefully they will when all is said and done.
Cbass
03-18-2004, 09:43 AM
So Iraq doesn't deserve democracy? The Iraq people don't deserve to choose who their leader is?
Obviously Bush feels that way, that's why he decided to choose who their leader would be.
They should just live under the rule of whatever tyrant comes along? I want us out as much as the next person but you can't just pull out and leave Iraq open to the next lunatic that has the most guns and goons to come along.
They're currently living under the rule of the latest tyrant with the most guns and goons to come along, Dubya!
The people there do want to be able to choose who their leader is they just don't want America or any other country to choose that leader for them. I believe they should have that choice. Hopefully they will when all is said and done.
Democracy will be very hard to attain in Iraq without splitting the country up into seperate Sunni and Shia states
Obviously Bush feels that way, that's why he decided to choose who their leader would be.
They should just live under the rule of whatever tyrant comes along? I want us out as much as the next person but you can't just pull out and leave Iraq open to the next lunatic that has the most guns and goons to come along.
They're currently living under the rule of the latest tyrant with the most guns and goons to come along, Dubya!
The people there do want to be able to choose who their leader is they just don't want America or any other country to choose that leader for them. I believe they should have that choice. Hopefully they will when all is said and done.
Democracy will be very hard to attain in Iraq without splitting the country up into seperate Sunni and Shia states
justacruiser
03-18-2004, 05:17 PM
One of the major problems with the 'democracy in Iraq' is that there is absolutely no cooperation between the peoples there. When the U.S. first started, we had just gone through a war and the colonies didn't really cooperate with each other much, they formed the articles of confederation. IT FAILED. Iraq, WILL NOT get any decent form of government until 2 major things happen.
1. The people stop going apeshit whenever some 'different type' of muslim comes around, (I didn't know there were any different ones).
2. They seperate their government from their religion, at least partially. When a 'cleric' has as much or more authority than a leader, it's gonna fall apart.
Until that happens, (and with them teaching their children to be like that from birth it will NEVER happen), there will be no peace over there.
1. The people stop going apeshit whenever some 'different type' of muslim comes around, (I didn't know there were any different ones).
2. They seperate their government from their religion, at least partially. When a 'cleric' has as much or more authority than a leader, it's gonna fall apart.
Until that happens, (and with them teaching their children to be like that from birth it will NEVER happen), there will be no peace over there.
DGB454
03-18-2004, 07:32 PM
Obviously Bush feels that way, that's why he decided to choose who their leader would be.
Really???? And who did he choose?
They're currently living under the rule of the latest tyrant with the most guns and goons to come along, Dubya!
1) He is a far cry from a tyrant.
2) There are plans to leave as soon as it's possible.
Democracy will be very hard to attain in Iraq without splitting the country up into seperate Sunni and Shia states
That's their choice. Every country goes through growing pains but the ones who make their own choices rather than living under the heavy hand of a dictator are always better off. The people deserve to choose for themselves. Under a dictator the freedom to choose is gone.
Really???? And who did he choose?
They're currently living under the rule of the latest tyrant with the most guns and goons to come along, Dubya!
1) He is a far cry from a tyrant.
2) There are plans to leave as soon as it's possible.
Democracy will be very hard to attain in Iraq without splitting the country up into seperate Sunni and Shia states
That's their choice. Every country goes through growing pains but the ones who make their own choices rather than living under the heavy hand of a dictator are always better off. The people deserve to choose for themselves. Under a dictator the freedom to choose is gone.
Cbass
03-18-2004, 08:22 PM
Iraq, WILL NOT get any decent form of government until 2 major things happen.
1. The people stop going apeshit whenever some 'different type' of muslim comes around, (I didn't know there were any different ones).
Judging from that quote, I don't think you know nearly enough about the political situations in Iraq to comment on what they need to become a democracy :icon16:
2. They seperate their government from their religion, at least partially. When a 'cleric' has as much or more authority than a leader, it's gonna fall apart.
If you recall, Hussein had a secular state. He kept the radical Islamists out of power, that's why the Shiites didn't like him, tried on several occasions to assassinate him, and attempted an uprising.
Until that happens, (and with them teaching their children to be like that from birth it will NEVER happen), there will be no peace over there.
Are we talking about the same country? Under Hussein's regime, people had freedom of religion, and there was a complete seperation of church and state. That government has only been out for a year now, so I doubt they have a new generation of brainwashed radical muslims already.
The major obstacle that democracy in Iraq faces is the US. Here's why.
The majority of Iraqis are Shia muslims, and a very large portion of them are radical fundamentalists. By far the most powerful Iraqi group today are the radical fundamentalist muslims. If there is democracy in Iraq, these men will control the government. They hold the same morals and ideals that the Iranians do, that the Taliban did, and that Osama Bin Laden holds, if he's still alive. If it's a legitimately elected democracy that the US has paved the way for, they can't very well go back and invade again to install a new governement.
Keep in mind, these are the same flavour of hardliner fundamentalists who engineered the 9/11 attacks, cut off the US's oil in 1973 and run schools that preach hatred of America, the great satan.
Hussein was right to oppress those people, they're dangerous, and they happen to be the most powerful Iraqi group right now. It doesn't look like there is any moderate party that can oppose them in an election, nor will there be any time soon. All the US can do is keep the puppets in power, and hope that they can goad foreign troops into the country to die in place of American soldiers.
1. The people stop going apeshit whenever some 'different type' of muslim comes around, (I didn't know there were any different ones).
Judging from that quote, I don't think you know nearly enough about the political situations in Iraq to comment on what they need to become a democracy :icon16:
2. They seperate their government from their religion, at least partially. When a 'cleric' has as much or more authority than a leader, it's gonna fall apart.
If you recall, Hussein had a secular state. He kept the radical Islamists out of power, that's why the Shiites didn't like him, tried on several occasions to assassinate him, and attempted an uprising.
Until that happens, (and with them teaching their children to be like that from birth it will NEVER happen), there will be no peace over there.
Are we talking about the same country? Under Hussein's regime, people had freedom of religion, and there was a complete seperation of church and state. That government has only been out for a year now, so I doubt they have a new generation of brainwashed radical muslims already.
The major obstacle that democracy in Iraq faces is the US. Here's why.
The majority of Iraqis are Shia muslims, and a very large portion of them are radical fundamentalists. By far the most powerful Iraqi group today are the radical fundamentalist muslims. If there is democracy in Iraq, these men will control the government. They hold the same morals and ideals that the Iranians do, that the Taliban did, and that Osama Bin Laden holds, if he's still alive. If it's a legitimately elected democracy that the US has paved the way for, they can't very well go back and invade again to install a new governement.
Keep in mind, these are the same flavour of hardliner fundamentalists who engineered the 9/11 attacks, cut off the US's oil in 1973 and run schools that preach hatred of America, the great satan.
Hussein was right to oppress those people, they're dangerous, and they happen to be the most powerful Iraqi group right now. It doesn't look like there is any moderate party that can oppose them in an election, nor will there be any time soon. All the US can do is keep the puppets in power, and hope that they can goad foreign troops into the country to die in place of American soldiers.
Cbass
03-18-2004, 08:35 PM
Really???? And who did he choose?
Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.
Although for publicity reasons, he also has the "Iraqi National Assembly" who are a bunch of wealthy Iraqis who were exiled by Saddam Hussein, or who fled the country. Then there's Paul Bremer, but I don't believe he actually has any power.
1) He is a far cry from a tyrant.
2) There are plans to leave as soon as it's possible.
1) That depends on who you talk to. To a republican supporter, he's Jesus reincarnated. To a democrat, he may indeed be a tyrant, or Satan himself. To an Iraqi, he's the guy who bombed them with impunity for a decade before invading their country, occupying it, and fighting a continuing war against Iraqis. He rules through military force, and Iraqis have no say in what goes on or what happens.
That sounds like a tyrant to me.
2) Bullshit. If the US wanted to, they would have held elections by now, and would have a UN peacekeeping force in the country. It's been a year now, and what has the US done? Nothing. They signed a meaningless document that holds no power, and they're still fighting a guerrilla war against the Iraqi people, a considerable number of whom obviously do not want them there. For those that supposedly do support the US being there, I pose this question. Would they rather have the US Army running the show, or a moderate Iraqi government?
That's their choice. Every country goes through growing pains but the ones who make their own choices rather than living under the heavy hand of a dictator are always better off. The people deserve to choose for themselves. Under a dictator the freedom to choose is gone.
In case you haven't noticed, the pains the Iraqi people are suffering right now are not from growing, but from a vicious war between a foreign power that has invaded and deposed their moderate secular socialist government, and the Iraqis who want their country back enough to fight and die for it.
They don't make their own choices, as the Pentagon makes all their choices for them. They are living under a dictator, the US Army.
Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.
Although for publicity reasons, he also has the "Iraqi National Assembly" who are a bunch of wealthy Iraqis who were exiled by Saddam Hussein, or who fled the country. Then there's Paul Bremer, but I don't believe he actually has any power.
1) He is a far cry from a tyrant.
2) There are plans to leave as soon as it's possible.
1) That depends on who you talk to. To a republican supporter, he's Jesus reincarnated. To a democrat, he may indeed be a tyrant, or Satan himself. To an Iraqi, he's the guy who bombed them with impunity for a decade before invading their country, occupying it, and fighting a continuing war against Iraqis. He rules through military force, and Iraqis have no say in what goes on or what happens.
That sounds like a tyrant to me.
2) Bullshit. If the US wanted to, they would have held elections by now, and would have a UN peacekeeping force in the country. It's been a year now, and what has the US done? Nothing. They signed a meaningless document that holds no power, and they're still fighting a guerrilla war against the Iraqi people, a considerable number of whom obviously do not want them there. For those that supposedly do support the US being there, I pose this question. Would they rather have the US Army running the show, or a moderate Iraqi government?
That's their choice. Every country goes through growing pains but the ones who make their own choices rather than living under the heavy hand of a dictator are always better off. The people deserve to choose for themselves. Under a dictator the freedom to choose is gone.
In case you haven't noticed, the pains the Iraqi people are suffering right now are not from growing, but from a vicious war between a foreign power that has invaded and deposed their moderate secular socialist government, and the Iraqis who want their country back enough to fight and die for it.
They don't make their own choices, as the Pentagon makes all their choices for them. They are living under a dictator, the US Army.
justacruiser
03-19-2004, 12:39 AM
Judging from that quote, I don't think you know nearly enough about the political situations in Iraq to comment on what they need to become a democracy
And I'm sure you became a fucking political commentator overnight right? You know as much or less than I do about the situation, so stow the shitty comments on my intellect hippie boy.
If you recall, Hussein had a secular state. He kept the radical Islamists out of power, that's why the Shiites didn't like him, tried on several occasions to assassinate him, and attempted an uprising.
Good for them! Too bad they didn't succeeed. However, Shiites are the ones trying to get in power right now, it's a nice endless cycle of different types of muslims hating other types of muslims, (so long as there's no one else handy to hate more), and gassing and/or bombing each other. A cohesive government wont occur until they cut that shit out and it will NEVER happen, they're born into thinking that way.
Are we talking about the same country? Under Hussein's regime, people had freedom of religion,
So long as Hussein didn't have a beef about that religion at the time and the people were the same religion as he was, sure they did!
That government has only been out for a year now, so I doubt they have a new generation of brainwashed radical muslims already.
Didn't a hotel just get annihilated? Aren't there U.S. soldiers and Iraquis who cooperate with them being blown apart or shot every day? I'd say that's pretty goddamn radical!
The majority of Iraqis are Shia muslims, and a very large portion of them are radical fundamentalists. By far the most powerful Iraqi group today are the radical fundamentalist muslims. If there is democracy in Iraq, these men will control the government. They hold the same morals and ideals that the Iranians do, that the Taliban did, and that Osama Bin Laden holds, if he's still alive. If it's a legitimately elected democracy that the US has paved the way for, they can't very well go back and invade again to install a new governement.
Didn't I just say something about seperating religion and government? 'radical fundamentalist muslims' whos 'men will control the government' qualifies as a problem with no seperation between church and state, doncha think??
Keep in mind, these are the same flavour of hardliner fundamentalists who engineered the 9/11 attacks, cut off the US's oil in 1973 and run schools that preach hatred of America, the great satan.
Hussein was right to oppress those people, they're dangerous, and they happen to be the most powerful Iraqi group right now. It doesn't look like there is any moderate party that can oppose them in an election, nor will there be any time soon. All the US can do is keep the puppets in power, and hope that they can goad foreign troops into the country to die in place of American soldiers.
I'm amazed. I don't know whether to be surprised that you actually have enough of a hard streak in that bleeding heart to think that those people should be opressed like that, or disgusted because it goes against everything you support to suppress any group of people, no matter what they are.
Okay, so you made my point for me. Religious and secular differences are the things keeping them from a democracy. The US is just holding off the Shiites from turning Iraq into either an oligarchy or another dictatorship, but one that's based off of the 'kill anything that doesn't praise allah, then kill anything that doesn't praise him exactly like we do' set of morals.
And I'm sure you became a fucking political commentator overnight right? You know as much or less than I do about the situation, so stow the shitty comments on my intellect hippie boy.
If you recall, Hussein had a secular state. He kept the radical Islamists out of power, that's why the Shiites didn't like him, tried on several occasions to assassinate him, and attempted an uprising.
Good for them! Too bad they didn't succeeed. However, Shiites are the ones trying to get in power right now, it's a nice endless cycle of different types of muslims hating other types of muslims, (so long as there's no one else handy to hate more), and gassing and/or bombing each other. A cohesive government wont occur until they cut that shit out and it will NEVER happen, they're born into thinking that way.
Are we talking about the same country? Under Hussein's regime, people had freedom of religion,
So long as Hussein didn't have a beef about that religion at the time and the people were the same religion as he was, sure they did!
That government has only been out for a year now, so I doubt they have a new generation of brainwashed radical muslims already.
Didn't a hotel just get annihilated? Aren't there U.S. soldiers and Iraquis who cooperate with them being blown apart or shot every day? I'd say that's pretty goddamn radical!
The majority of Iraqis are Shia muslims, and a very large portion of them are radical fundamentalists. By far the most powerful Iraqi group today are the radical fundamentalist muslims. If there is democracy in Iraq, these men will control the government. They hold the same morals and ideals that the Iranians do, that the Taliban did, and that Osama Bin Laden holds, if he's still alive. If it's a legitimately elected democracy that the US has paved the way for, they can't very well go back and invade again to install a new governement.
Didn't I just say something about seperating religion and government? 'radical fundamentalist muslims' whos 'men will control the government' qualifies as a problem with no seperation between church and state, doncha think??
Keep in mind, these are the same flavour of hardliner fundamentalists who engineered the 9/11 attacks, cut off the US's oil in 1973 and run schools that preach hatred of America, the great satan.
Hussein was right to oppress those people, they're dangerous, and they happen to be the most powerful Iraqi group right now. It doesn't look like there is any moderate party that can oppose them in an election, nor will there be any time soon. All the US can do is keep the puppets in power, and hope that they can goad foreign troops into the country to die in place of American soldiers.
I'm amazed. I don't know whether to be surprised that you actually have enough of a hard streak in that bleeding heart to think that those people should be opressed like that, or disgusted because it goes against everything you support to suppress any group of people, no matter what they are.
Okay, so you made my point for me. Religious and secular differences are the things keeping them from a democracy. The US is just holding off the Shiites from turning Iraq into either an oligarchy or another dictatorship, but one that's based off of the 'kill anything that doesn't praise allah, then kill anything that doesn't praise him exactly like we do' set of morals.
Cbass
03-19-2004, 01:18 PM
And I'm sure you became a fucking political commentator overnight right? You know as much or less than I do about the situation, so stow the shitty comments on my intellect hippie boy.
Good for them! Too bad they didn't succeeed. However, Shiites are the ones trying to get in power right now, it's a nice endless cycle of different types of muslims hating other types of muslims, (so long as there's no one else handy to hate more), and gassing and/or bombing each other. A cohesive government wont occur until they cut that shit out and it will NEVER happen, they're born into thinking that way.
Amazing, you didn't know that there are more than two sects of Islam, yet you're expert enough to know that all muslims do is hate. I think what you've heard is somewhat incorrect. There are schools that preach extremist rhetoric to children, yes. They are not the mainstream however, they are run by Wahabi muslims and Hussein wasn't a big fan of them.
Most muslims just want to live a life of security and prosperity, just like most christians, or most jews, or most aethiests for that matter. The extremist just get a lot more press, as they are the ones committing terrorist acts, destabilizing governments, etc.
Didn't a hotel just get annihilated? Aren't there U.S. soldiers and Iraquis who cooperate with them being blown apart or shot every day? I'd say that's pretty goddamn radical!
Yes, because there happens to be a war going on over there. You could say that the US soldiers are radical extremists as well, if you want to use that reasoning.
Didn't I just say something about seperating religion and government? 'radical fundamentalist muslims' whos 'men will control the government' qualifies as a problem with no seperation between church and state, doncha think??
Hussein's regime was SECULAR. That means complete seperation of church and state. The inevitable outcome of democracy in Iraq will be a religious based party in power. Hussein either eliminated or assimilated any politician who could rival his power, so there happens to be a shortage of people to run for office. The only people who have any support at all are the Shia clerics, chiefly the Grand Ayatollah.
I'm amazed. I don't know whether to be surprised that you actually have enough of a hard streak in that bleeding heart to think that those people should be opressed like that, or disgusted because it goes against everything you support to suppress any group of people, no matter what they are.
Way to tell me what my ideals are, I'm sure glad you did, or I'd have no idea what I believed in!
In my opinion, religious extremists of any flavour should be curtailed. To me, they're all completely nuts. That goes for Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Pagans, etc. Anyone who will get so deep into religious ideology that it becomes the only thing that matters to them is dangerous, in my opinion. When they band together and form a political organization, the threat that they pose multiplies exponentially. Once they have a lobby in a democratic government and votes to use as bargaining chips, they can press their ideology on the government.
There is no way that the US is going to let these people take office, even as a puppet government. It's just a bad idea in all ways for the US, they won't be able to get the oil, they'll have another radical islamic state in the middle east preaching hate against America, and Israel would NEVER go along with it.
Okay, so you made my point for me. Religious and secular differences are the things keeping them from a democracy. The US is just holding off the Shiites from turning Iraq into either an oligarchy or another dictatorship, but one that's based off of the 'kill anything that doesn't praise allah, then kill anything that doesn't praise him exactly like we do' set of morals.
The thing keeping Iraq from a democratic government is the United States of America. If elections were held tomorrow, the winner would surely be the Grand Ayatollah, Sayyid Ali Husaini Sistani. In case you haven't noticed, he's not cooperating with the US. He's waiting them out.
The Shiites are the majority, and you can damned well bet they're going to vote Shiite. It's not secular differences that are keeping Iraq a dictatorship, it's the fact that the majority of Iraqis will vote for a radical islamic government, and the US will not allow that to happen.
Good for them! Too bad they didn't succeeed. However, Shiites are the ones trying to get in power right now, it's a nice endless cycle of different types of muslims hating other types of muslims, (so long as there's no one else handy to hate more), and gassing and/or bombing each other. A cohesive government wont occur until they cut that shit out and it will NEVER happen, they're born into thinking that way.
Amazing, you didn't know that there are more than two sects of Islam, yet you're expert enough to know that all muslims do is hate. I think what you've heard is somewhat incorrect. There are schools that preach extremist rhetoric to children, yes. They are not the mainstream however, they are run by Wahabi muslims and Hussein wasn't a big fan of them.
Most muslims just want to live a life of security and prosperity, just like most christians, or most jews, or most aethiests for that matter. The extremist just get a lot more press, as they are the ones committing terrorist acts, destabilizing governments, etc.
Didn't a hotel just get annihilated? Aren't there U.S. soldiers and Iraquis who cooperate with them being blown apart or shot every day? I'd say that's pretty goddamn radical!
Yes, because there happens to be a war going on over there. You could say that the US soldiers are radical extremists as well, if you want to use that reasoning.
Didn't I just say something about seperating religion and government? 'radical fundamentalist muslims' whos 'men will control the government' qualifies as a problem with no seperation between church and state, doncha think??
Hussein's regime was SECULAR. That means complete seperation of church and state. The inevitable outcome of democracy in Iraq will be a religious based party in power. Hussein either eliminated or assimilated any politician who could rival his power, so there happens to be a shortage of people to run for office. The only people who have any support at all are the Shia clerics, chiefly the Grand Ayatollah.
I'm amazed. I don't know whether to be surprised that you actually have enough of a hard streak in that bleeding heart to think that those people should be opressed like that, or disgusted because it goes against everything you support to suppress any group of people, no matter what they are.
Way to tell me what my ideals are, I'm sure glad you did, or I'd have no idea what I believed in!
In my opinion, religious extremists of any flavour should be curtailed. To me, they're all completely nuts. That goes for Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Pagans, etc. Anyone who will get so deep into religious ideology that it becomes the only thing that matters to them is dangerous, in my opinion. When they band together and form a political organization, the threat that they pose multiplies exponentially. Once they have a lobby in a democratic government and votes to use as bargaining chips, they can press their ideology on the government.
There is no way that the US is going to let these people take office, even as a puppet government. It's just a bad idea in all ways for the US, they won't be able to get the oil, they'll have another radical islamic state in the middle east preaching hate against America, and Israel would NEVER go along with it.
Okay, so you made my point for me. Religious and secular differences are the things keeping them from a democracy. The US is just holding off the Shiites from turning Iraq into either an oligarchy or another dictatorship, but one that's based off of the 'kill anything that doesn't praise allah, then kill anything that doesn't praise him exactly like we do' set of morals.
The thing keeping Iraq from a democratic government is the United States of America. If elections were held tomorrow, the winner would surely be the Grand Ayatollah, Sayyid Ali Husaini Sistani. In case you haven't noticed, he's not cooperating with the US. He's waiting them out.
The Shiites are the majority, and you can damned well bet they're going to vote Shiite. It's not secular differences that are keeping Iraq a dictatorship, it's the fact that the majority of Iraqis will vote for a radical islamic government, and the US will not allow that to happen.
T4 Primera
03-20-2004, 05:13 AM
Personally, I think the complete separation of corporate interests from government would solve as many, if not more, problems.
DGB454
03-20-2004, 09:53 AM
Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.
Although for publicity reasons, he also has the "Iraqi National Assembly" who are a bunch of wealthy Iraqis who were exiled by Saddam Hussein, or who fled the country. Then there's Paul Bremer, but I don't believe he actually has any power.
That's what you see. That's not what I see.
1) That depends on who you talk to. To a republican supporter, he's Jesus reincarnated. To a democrat, he may indeed be a tyrant, or Satan himself. To an Iraqi, he's the guy who bombed them with impunity for a decade before invading their country, occupying it, and fighting a continuing war against Iraqis. He rules through military force, and Iraqis have no say in what goes on or what happens.
I am a republican supporter and you are very wrong on your how you think I feel about him. I suppose you speak for all democrats? I also suppose you have talked to enough Iraqi people you can also speak for them? I love how you stereotype everyone.
That sounds like a tyrant to me. 2) Bullshit. If the US wanted to, they would have held elections by now, and would have a UN peacekeeping force in the country. It's been a year now, and what has the US done? Nothing. They signed a meaningless document that holds no power, and they're still fighting a guerrilla war against the Iraqi people, a considerable number of whom obviously do not want them there. For those that supposedly do support the US being there, I pose this question. Would they rather have the US Army running the show, or a moderate Iraqi government?
If the US wanted too? Seems to me when they try to get something going the UN criticizes them for moving too fast then complains because they aren't moving fast enough. What UN peace keeping force? One headed by France or Germany?
Normal Iraqi people aren't the ones waging the Guerilla war it's the Muslim extremest.
I'm guessing a moderate Iraqi government. The problem is there is no Iraqi government. There wasn't an Iraqi government before. Ther was a dictatorship.
In case you haven't noticed, the pains the Iraqi people are suffering right now are not from growing, but from a vicious war between a foreign power that has invaded and deposed their moderate secular socialist government, and the Iraqis who want their country back enough to fight and die for it.
They don't make their own choices, as the Pentagon makes all their choices for them. They are living under a dictator, the US Army.
Again you call the government they had a moderate socialist government. So Sadaam was a moderate socialist president/ruler?
Maybe in Bizarro world. He was a ruthless dictator with ruthless sons and friends who did as they pleased to whomever they pleased.
You seem so sure that it's the average Iraqi who just wants his country back who is fighting against the US army. I'm betting you are wrong.
I beleive most of the attacks against the US and other allied forces are from Islamic extremist who are recruiting from other countries and Iraq.
I don't know how this will end and I am not positive about the underlying motives behind it. I do hope in the end Iraq will end up with some kind of a democracy as I am sure most Iraqi people would want that also. It will be long road to go down for Iraq but I doubt very much there are very many Iraqi citizens who would want the return of Hussein with his "socialist government" or anyone like him.
Although for publicity reasons, he also has the "Iraqi National Assembly" who are a bunch of wealthy Iraqis who were exiled by Saddam Hussein, or who fled the country. Then there's Paul Bremer, but I don't believe he actually has any power.
That's what you see. That's not what I see.
1) That depends on who you talk to. To a republican supporter, he's Jesus reincarnated. To a democrat, he may indeed be a tyrant, or Satan himself. To an Iraqi, he's the guy who bombed them with impunity for a decade before invading their country, occupying it, and fighting a continuing war against Iraqis. He rules through military force, and Iraqis have no say in what goes on or what happens.
I am a republican supporter and you are very wrong on your how you think I feel about him. I suppose you speak for all democrats? I also suppose you have talked to enough Iraqi people you can also speak for them? I love how you stereotype everyone.
That sounds like a tyrant to me. 2) Bullshit. If the US wanted to, they would have held elections by now, and would have a UN peacekeeping force in the country. It's been a year now, and what has the US done? Nothing. They signed a meaningless document that holds no power, and they're still fighting a guerrilla war against the Iraqi people, a considerable number of whom obviously do not want them there. For those that supposedly do support the US being there, I pose this question. Would they rather have the US Army running the show, or a moderate Iraqi government?
If the US wanted too? Seems to me when they try to get something going the UN criticizes them for moving too fast then complains because they aren't moving fast enough. What UN peace keeping force? One headed by France or Germany?
Normal Iraqi people aren't the ones waging the Guerilla war it's the Muslim extremest.
I'm guessing a moderate Iraqi government. The problem is there is no Iraqi government. There wasn't an Iraqi government before. Ther was a dictatorship.
In case you haven't noticed, the pains the Iraqi people are suffering right now are not from growing, but from a vicious war between a foreign power that has invaded and deposed their moderate secular socialist government, and the Iraqis who want their country back enough to fight and die for it.
They don't make their own choices, as the Pentagon makes all their choices for them. They are living under a dictator, the US Army.
Again you call the government they had a moderate socialist government. So Sadaam was a moderate socialist president/ruler?
Maybe in Bizarro world. He was a ruthless dictator with ruthless sons and friends who did as they pleased to whomever they pleased.
You seem so sure that it's the average Iraqi who just wants his country back who is fighting against the US army. I'm betting you are wrong.
I beleive most of the attacks against the US and other allied forces are from Islamic extremist who are recruiting from other countries and Iraq.
I don't know how this will end and I am not positive about the underlying motives behind it. I do hope in the end Iraq will end up with some kind of a democracy as I am sure most Iraqi people would want that also. It will be long road to go down for Iraq but I doubt very much there are very many Iraqi citizens who would want the return of Hussein with his "socialist government" or anyone like him.
Cbass
03-20-2004, 07:24 PM
That's what you see. That's not what I see.
If you can't see that the people making the policy decisions in Iraq are Dubyas foreign policy scheme team, you must be blind. :grinyes:
I am a republican supporter and you are very wrong on your how you think I feel about him. I suppose you speak for all democrats? I also suppose you have talked to enough Iraqi people you can also speak for them? I love how you stereotype everyone.
Do you expect me to break down each group into it's seperate opinions? No, I'm generalizing because it's the popular opinion of each particular group. The majority of Republican supporters support Bush, and glorify him as the best president this country has ever had. This is from my personal experience, maybe you know more republicans than I do, and maybe the majority of the ones you know don't like Bush. I doubt it though, am I wrong?
The democrats don't like Bush, they had to support him after 9/11, but that was some time ago, and now it's election time, so it's back to the old game. Many democrats still believe that Bush stole the election in 2000, and is making all the wrong decisions for the US, with no one to answer to. Many democrats hate Bush, as much as many republicans hated, and still hate Clinton.
I get my opinion of Iraqis from arab news networks, even hindu news networks which are anti-arab and pro-US. Of course, I'm sure they just say that they want the US out of their country and a democratic government and peace just because they're anti-US.
I find that a much more credible source than watching Fox news and CNN, where we continually hear about how much the Iraqi people love having the US Army occupying their country and running it for them. They don't believe in democracy anyways, after all. Look at how many democracies you'll find in the middle east! :shakehead
If the US wanted too? Seems to me when they try to get something going the UN criticizes them for moving too fast then complains because they aren't moving fast enough. What UN peace keeping force? One headed by France or Germany?
The UN already made it clear they would send troops in if the US would relinquish control of the country. The US made it clear that's not going to happen, and Bush asked for UN nations to send soldiers to serve under the US army.
The UN criticized the US for invading the country based on bogus claims, that the world community wanted to see proven before action could be taken. Iraq was letting in weapons inspectors, even offering to let foreign troops within their borders, by February.
Normal Iraqi people aren't the ones waging the Guerilla war it's the Muslim extremest.
Why don't you give me a demographic breakdown of the Iraqi population, as to what percentage of the population is Sunni, Shiite, Kurdish, and what percentage of these groups are moderate and what percentage are extremests?
If you want to go by a majority, the majority of around 60% are Shia muslims, of whom a great many are extremists, who probably don't take kindly to "The great satan" invading their country and killing their people.
I'm guessing a moderate Iraqi government. The problem is there is no Iraqi government. There wasn't an Iraqi government before. Ther was a dictatorship.
A dictatorship is a form of government. It's actually a fairly efficient form of government, and often an idealogical dictatorship, like that of Husseins government, better suits the needs of the people than a corrupt democratic government dominated by lobbyists and money, like the US gov't.
You can't argue that National Socialist Germany, although a dictatorship, saw a vast improvement in the quality of living for Germans, and in fact paved the way for social democracy, and the concept of the welfare state where the government ensures the health, employment and general well being of the people of the nation.
Oh, and please don't bring up Germany's actions relating to minorities and handicapped people, as it is not germaine(bad pun of the day :biggrin: ) to the discussion.
Again you call the government they had a moderate socialist government. So Sadaam was a moderate socialist president/ruler?
Maybe in Bizarro world. He was a ruthless dictator with ruthless sons and friends who did as they pleased to whomever they pleased.
...... Do you understand the meaning of a moderate socialist government? I don't think you do. His policies on personal freedom were damned good for a dictatorship, as long as you don't make him think you're becoming too powerful. That's one of the things about a dictatorship, you have to be ruthless when it comes to adversaries, as they will try to force you out, or assassinate you.
His policies on welfare and health care were far better than those you'll find in the US, largely because of the wealth from oil. Education was completely free, if you recall. The standard of living was quite high for Iraqis, as it is for Kuwaitis and Saudi Arabians, and other nations which have large reserves of oil.
The Iranian war, a war the US encouraged and supported Iraq in, ground Iraq down economically, socially and militarily. Just at the point where Iraq was poised to recover economically, Kuwait provoked a war by demanding immediate repayment of loans made during the war and by increasing their oil production well beyond the OPEC quotas, lowering the price of oil, and cutting the Iraqi economy down. When Hussein went to the US, they told him they would not interfere in a Kuwaiti-Iraqi war. Iraq invaded, the gulf war ensued, and then came the economic sanctions, which were manipulated by the US so that they would never be lifted, by placing the burden of proof on Iraq to prove that nowhere in the country were there weapons of mass destruction, or the facilities to produce them. That was an impossible task without an army going over the country with a fine tooth comb, which is what the US did, and didn't find anything. Funny that.
That's when the sharp decline in the standard of living started, largely because there were economic sanctions against Iraq, and the US and Britain were continually bombing the power and water infrastructure in Iraq for over a decade. Over a million Iraqis died in the 1990s, for exactly those reasons.
You seem so sure that it's the average Iraqi who just wants his country back who is fighting against the US army. I'm betting you are wrong.
I beleive most of the attacks against the US and other allied forces are from Islamic extremist who are recruiting from other countries and Iraq.
I'm not saying that five out of ten Iraqis are insurgents fighting the US, but I'd speculate a great number of Iraqis must support them. If they didn't have at least a large minority supporting them, it's likely they would have been turned over by the Iraqi people by now.
Despite what the Bush administration says, that aspect of the war is directly paralled by Vietnam, and by the occupied territories in Paletine. There is an insurgent element in the population, and they are being protected by the populace. It really does take popular support to carry out guerrilla attacks in populated areas and not get caught. Judging from the number of attacks, and the severity of the attacks, there must be quite a few insurgents, and they are well coordinated.
I don't know how this will end and I am not positive about the underlying motives behind it. I do hope in the end Iraq will end up with some kind of a democracy as I am sure most Iraqi people would want that also. It will be long road to go down for Iraq but I doubt very much there are very many Iraqi citizens who would want the return of Hussein with his "socialist government" or anyone like him.
The US will stay as long as possible in Iraq. The Iraqi insurgents will fight the US as long as they stay, or as long as they can. Democracy will not be achieved until the US steps back from the political scene in Iraq, and allows elections for representatives of each area. A coalition is the only way you will be able to achieve democracy in such a divided country, without splitting the country into 3 seperate nations, each ruled by it's own autonomous government. The problem is, the US won't much care for the democratically elected government in any of these cases, as they won't be 100% for US interests.
Older Iraqis may remember the early 80s, when they had free health care, clean water and cheap power, a powerful oil fueled economy and a strong national identity. That was under Saddam Hussein, and quite a few of them may in fact prefer that to the devasted mess Iraq is today, where there is little work to be had, little food to go around, and armed soldiers and rebel Iraqis fighting a war on the streets. Just speculation on my part, of course.
If you can't see that the people making the policy decisions in Iraq are Dubyas foreign policy scheme team, you must be blind. :grinyes:
I am a republican supporter and you are very wrong on your how you think I feel about him. I suppose you speak for all democrats? I also suppose you have talked to enough Iraqi people you can also speak for them? I love how you stereotype everyone.
Do you expect me to break down each group into it's seperate opinions? No, I'm generalizing because it's the popular opinion of each particular group. The majority of Republican supporters support Bush, and glorify him as the best president this country has ever had. This is from my personal experience, maybe you know more republicans than I do, and maybe the majority of the ones you know don't like Bush. I doubt it though, am I wrong?
The democrats don't like Bush, they had to support him after 9/11, but that was some time ago, and now it's election time, so it's back to the old game. Many democrats still believe that Bush stole the election in 2000, and is making all the wrong decisions for the US, with no one to answer to. Many democrats hate Bush, as much as many republicans hated, and still hate Clinton.
I get my opinion of Iraqis from arab news networks, even hindu news networks which are anti-arab and pro-US. Of course, I'm sure they just say that they want the US out of their country and a democratic government and peace just because they're anti-US.
I find that a much more credible source than watching Fox news and CNN, where we continually hear about how much the Iraqi people love having the US Army occupying their country and running it for them. They don't believe in democracy anyways, after all. Look at how many democracies you'll find in the middle east! :shakehead
If the US wanted too? Seems to me when they try to get something going the UN criticizes them for moving too fast then complains because they aren't moving fast enough. What UN peace keeping force? One headed by France or Germany?
The UN already made it clear they would send troops in if the US would relinquish control of the country. The US made it clear that's not going to happen, and Bush asked for UN nations to send soldiers to serve under the US army.
The UN criticized the US for invading the country based on bogus claims, that the world community wanted to see proven before action could be taken. Iraq was letting in weapons inspectors, even offering to let foreign troops within their borders, by February.
Normal Iraqi people aren't the ones waging the Guerilla war it's the Muslim extremest.
Why don't you give me a demographic breakdown of the Iraqi population, as to what percentage of the population is Sunni, Shiite, Kurdish, and what percentage of these groups are moderate and what percentage are extremests?
If you want to go by a majority, the majority of around 60% are Shia muslims, of whom a great many are extremists, who probably don't take kindly to "The great satan" invading their country and killing their people.
I'm guessing a moderate Iraqi government. The problem is there is no Iraqi government. There wasn't an Iraqi government before. Ther was a dictatorship.
A dictatorship is a form of government. It's actually a fairly efficient form of government, and often an idealogical dictatorship, like that of Husseins government, better suits the needs of the people than a corrupt democratic government dominated by lobbyists and money, like the US gov't.
You can't argue that National Socialist Germany, although a dictatorship, saw a vast improvement in the quality of living for Germans, and in fact paved the way for social democracy, and the concept of the welfare state where the government ensures the health, employment and general well being of the people of the nation.
Oh, and please don't bring up Germany's actions relating to minorities and handicapped people, as it is not germaine(bad pun of the day :biggrin: ) to the discussion.
Again you call the government they had a moderate socialist government. So Sadaam was a moderate socialist president/ruler?
Maybe in Bizarro world. He was a ruthless dictator with ruthless sons and friends who did as they pleased to whomever they pleased.
...... Do you understand the meaning of a moderate socialist government? I don't think you do. His policies on personal freedom were damned good for a dictatorship, as long as you don't make him think you're becoming too powerful. That's one of the things about a dictatorship, you have to be ruthless when it comes to adversaries, as they will try to force you out, or assassinate you.
His policies on welfare and health care were far better than those you'll find in the US, largely because of the wealth from oil. Education was completely free, if you recall. The standard of living was quite high for Iraqis, as it is for Kuwaitis and Saudi Arabians, and other nations which have large reserves of oil.
The Iranian war, a war the US encouraged and supported Iraq in, ground Iraq down economically, socially and militarily. Just at the point where Iraq was poised to recover economically, Kuwait provoked a war by demanding immediate repayment of loans made during the war and by increasing their oil production well beyond the OPEC quotas, lowering the price of oil, and cutting the Iraqi economy down. When Hussein went to the US, they told him they would not interfere in a Kuwaiti-Iraqi war. Iraq invaded, the gulf war ensued, and then came the economic sanctions, which were manipulated by the US so that they would never be lifted, by placing the burden of proof on Iraq to prove that nowhere in the country were there weapons of mass destruction, or the facilities to produce them. That was an impossible task without an army going over the country with a fine tooth comb, which is what the US did, and didn't find anything. Funny that.
That's when the sharp decline in the standard of living started, largely because there were economic sanctions against Iraq, and the US and Britain were continually bombing the power and water infrastructure in Iraq for over a decade. Over a million Iraqis died in the 1990s, for exactly those reasons.
You seem so sure that it's the average Iraqi who just wants his country back who is fighting against the US army. I'm betting you are wrong.
I beleive most of the attacks against the US and other allied forces are from Islamic extremist who are recruiting from other countries and Iraq.
I'm not saying that five out of ten Iraqis are insurgents fighting the US, but I'd speculate a great number of Iraqis must support them. If they didn't have at least a large minority supporting them, it's likely they would have been turned over by the Iraqi people by now.
Despite what the Bush administration says, that aspect of the war is directly paralled by Vietnam, and by the occupied territories in Paletine. There is an insurgent element in the population, and they are being protected by the populace. It really does take popular support to carry out guerrilla attacks in populated areas and not get caught. Judging from the number of attacks, and the severity of the attacks, there must be quite a few insurgents, and they are well coordinated.
I don't know how this will end and I am not positive about the underlying motives behind it. I do hope in the end Iraq will end up with some kind of a democracy as I am sure most Iraqi people would want that also. It will be long road to go down for Iraq but I doubt very much there are very many Iraqi citizens who would want the return of Hussein with his "socialist government" or anyone like him.
The US will stay as long as possible in Iraq. The Iraqi insurgents will fight the US as long as they stay, or as long as they can. Democracy will not be achieved until the US steps back from the political scene in Iraq, and allows elections for representatives of each area. A coalition is the only way you will be able to achieve democracy in such a divided country, without splitting the country into 3 seperate nations, each ruled by it's own autonomous government. The problem is, the US won't much care for the democratically elected government in any of these cases, as they won't be 100% for US interests.
Older Iraqis may remember the early 80s, when they had free health care, clean water and cheap power, a powerful oil fueled economy and a strong national identity. That was under Saddam Hussein, and quite a few of them may in fact prefer that to the devasted mess Iraq is today, where there is little work to be had, little food to go around, and armed soldiers and rebel Iraqis fighting a war on the streets. Just speculation on my part, of course.
DGB454
03-20-2004, 10:36 PM
I can only get into this part right now.Older Iraqis may remember the early 80s, when they had free health care, clean water and cheap power, a powerful oil fueled economy and a strong national identity. That was under Saddam Hussein, and quite a few of them may in fact prefer that to the devasted mess Iraq is today, where there is little work to be had, little food to go around, and armed soldiers and rebel Iraqis fighting a war on the streets. Just speculation on my part, of course. In July 1979 the president, Al-Bakr, was replaced by Hussein, his vice president, chosen successor, and the true ruler of Iraq. Sadaam then assumed both of the vacated offices and purged political rivals in order to assure his position. Once more the political situation flared into hostilities with Iran. On September 17, 1980 Saddam declares the Iraqi/Iranian borders agreement (Algiers Agreement) null and void, claiming the whole of Shatt el-Arab back to Iraq. The Iran-Iraq War, which began 5 days later on September 22, 1980, lasted for eight years and had a crippling effect on the economy of both countries; in which after eight years of war no territory had been gained by either side but an estimated one million lives had been lost. The Iran-Iraq War was then in its eighth year, when on Wednesday 16th March 1988, Saddam's cousin Ali-Hassan al-Majid , who led the campaigns against the Iraqi Kurds in the late eighties, orchestrated a genocide, by attacking Halabja, a predominantly Iraqi Kurdish village in northeastern Iraq near the front lines with Iran, with mustard gas and nerve agents. Estimates vary, but according to Human Rights Watch up to 5,000 people were killed. The raid was over in minutes. Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against his own people. Halabja was in perpetual revolt against the regime of Saddam Hussein, and its inhabitants were mostly supporters of the peshmerga, the Kurdish fighters whose name means "those who face death."
Yeah I'm sure the older Iraqis want to go back to that
Yeah I'm sure the older Iraqis want to go back to that
T4 Primera
03-21-2004, 02:46 AM
...The Iran-Iraq War was then in its eighth year, when on Wednesday 16th March 1988, Saddam's cousin Ali-Hassan al-Majid , who led the campaigns against the Iraqi Kurds in the late eighties, orchestrated a genocide, by attacking Halabja, a predominantly Iraqi Kurdish village in northeastern Iraq near the front lines with Iran, with mustard gas and nerve agents. Estimates vary, but according to Human Rights Watch up to 5,000 people were killed. The raid was over in minutes. Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against his own people. Halabja was in perpetual revolt against the regime of Saddam Hussein, and its inhabitants were mostly supporters of the peshmerga, the Kurdish fighters whose name means "those who face death."
Responsibility for this has been debated ever since. One side argues that Iran dropped the bombs since cyanide based toxin was evident. The other side argues that Iraq dropped the bombs after Iran had captured Halabja. Whoever was responsible is irrelevant. What is relevant is who the Iraqis think was responsible and why they did it.
Yeah I'm sure the older Iraqis want to go back to that
Again, it all depends on who they think was responsible.
Similarly important is the slightly younger Iraqis opinion - of a decade of sanctions & bombings, and no fly zones in which hundreds of thousands, mostly children, died as a result. Blame Saddam, the UN or the US - it matters not. What matters is who "they" hold responsible.
How many relatives of the deceased do you think make the phsychological metamorphosis from moderate to radical when something like the Amariyah massacre takes place. Here's a list of the dead:
http://www.endthewar.org/Downloads/Amariyahnames.pdf
Now, bearing in mind the structure of the Iraqi society into extended families and tribes - that one incident left a very large number of men suddenly living a life without their wives and children - nothing left to lose......and those men have relatives, and tribes, and this is just one example.
In support of Cbass's post on the Iraqi preference for government - read this: http://peace.mennolink.org/resources/delegation/021115.html
Responsibility for this has been debated ever since. One side argues that Iran dropped the bombs since cyanide based toxin was evident. The other side argues that Iraq dropped the bombs after Iran had captured Halabja. Whoever was responsible is irrelevant. What is relevant is who the Iraqis think was responsible and why they did it.
Yeah I'm sure the older Iraqis want to go back to that
Again, it all depends on who they think was responsible.
Similarly important is the slightly younger Iraqis opinion - of a decade of sanctions & bombings, and no fly zones in which hundreds of thousands, mostly children, died as a result. Blame Saddam, the UN or the US - it matters not. What matters is who "they" hold responsible.
How many relatives of the deceased do you think make the phsychological metamorphosis from moderate to radical when something like the Amariyah massacre takes place. Here's a list of the dead:
http://www.endthewar.org/Downloads/Amariyahnames.pdf
Now, bearing in mind the structure of the Iraqi society into extended families and tribes - that one incident left a very large number of men suddenly living a life without their wives and children - nothing left to lose......and those men have relatives, and tribes, and this is just one example.
In support of Cbass's post on the Iraqi preference for government - read this: http://peace.mennolink.org/resources/delegation/021115.html
taranaki
03-21-2004, 06:08 AM
The Daily Bombing.
Nothing new.
True that...today's death and mayhem was brought to you courtesy of this man.....
http://volcano.photobucket.com/albums/v11/taranaki/OneTermPres.png
Fix it or resign,George. :disappoin
Nothing new.
True that...today's death and mayhem was brought to you courtesy of this man.....
http://volcano.photobucket.com/albums/v11/taranaki/OneTermPres.png
Fix it or resign,George. :disappoin
DGB454
03-21-2004, 08:14 AM
This is just a small sample of an isolated incident but these people don't seem to have been terribly upset by Sadaam being ousted.
Were they coerced into saying and acting the way they did?
"Now my son can have a chance in life," said Bushra Abed, pointing to her 2-year-old son,Ibrahim, as they watched the statue come down in central Baghdad with the help of U.S. Marines.
Watching U.S. troops move through the city in armored convoys, people flooded the streets to cheer.
Women lifted their babies for the soldiers to kiss. Young men shouted in English, "Bush No. 1, Bush No. 1."
Some men, swept up by the emotion of the moment, rushed into the streets wearing only their underwear
to greet the Marines.
"I'm 49, but I never lived a single day. Only now will I start living," Yussuf Abed Kazim, a mosque preacher, said as he whacked tile and concrete off the pedestal of the toppled statue. With the 40-foot bronze statue now flat on the ground, men surged forward and climbed on top of it, dancing on the chest and face before beating it with sledgehammers. "Hit the eye, hit the eye," one of them cried.
Iraqis and U.S. Marines hugged, high-fived or shook hands. Some of the Marines held their rifles aloft in a victorious pose.
Women ululated and men cheered. Groups of men offered prayers of thanks. Others dragged the torn-off head through the streets, while children rode it and beat it with shoes and slippers -- a grave insult in the Arab world. "I don't like to see a foreign army in Iraq," said Abed, the mother who watched the statue come down. "But all those who tried to get rid of him were killed. We have no choice, we lived in so much fear," she said.
During the celebrating at al-Firdos Square, Ali Abu Omar, a 40-year-old engineer at the nearby Ibn al-Haitham hospital, asked a reporter to come away from the crowd. "These are the very people who cheered Saddam for years," he whispered, pointing,apparently still fearing the "ears" of the regime that has terrified Iraqis for nearly 30 years.
Were they coerced into saying and acting the way they did?
"Now my son can have a chance in life," said Bushra Abed, pointing to her 2-year-old son,Ibrahim, as they watched the statue come down in central Baghdad with the help of U.S. Marines.
Watching U.S. troops move through the city in armored convoys, people flooded the streets to cheer.
Women lifted their babies for the soldiers to kiss. Young men shouted in English, "Bush No. 1, Bush No. 1."
Some men, swept up by the emotion of the moment, rushed into the streets wearing only their underwear
to greet the Marines.
"I'm 49, but I never lived a single day. Only now will I start living," Yussuf Abed Kazim, a mosque preacher, said as he whacked tile and concrete off the pedestal of the toppled statue. With the 40-foot bronze statue now flat on the ground, men surged forward and climbed on top of it, dancing on the chest and face before beating it with sledgehammers. "Hit the eye, hit the eye," one of them cried.
Iraqis and U.S. Marines hugged, high-fived or shook hands. Some of the Marines held their rifles aloft in a victorious pose.
Women ululated and men cheered. Groups of men offered prayers of thanks. Others dragged the torn-off head through the streets, while children rode it and beat it with shoes and slippers -- a grave insult in the Arab world. "I don't like to see a foreign army in Iraq," said Abed, the mother who watched the statue come down. "But all those who tried to get rid of him were killed. We have no choice, we lived in so much fear," she said.
During the celebrating at al-Firdos Square, Ali Abu Omar, a 40-year-old engineer at the nearby Ibn al-Haitham hospital, asked a reporter to come away from the crowd. "These are the very people who cheered Saddam for years," he whispered, pointing,apparently still fearing the "ears" of the regime that has terrified Iraqis for nearly 30 years.
DGB454
03-21-2004, 08:41 AM
It seems like a lot of people on this board are under the impression that all republican supporters are pro-Bush and anti-Iraq(or pro-war). This is not the case with many republican supporters. I am not a supporter of the war in Iraq but I am a supporter of a democratic government in Iraq. I am also a supporter of the Iraqi peoples freedom to choose who leads Iraq. I do not want the U.S. ,the U.N. or any other country choosing who leads Iraq. This is a choice that must be left up to the people. I know that the U.S. govt. will most likely try to put into power who they think will serve the U.S. interest the most but that would happen under any administration. This isn't issolated to the U.S. Any country in the world will behave similarly. Look at the history of most countries when in a similar position. All have tried to put in leaders who would best serve their interest. I am not defending this practice I am just saying that it happens.I said I am not pro-Bush on other occasions but it seems that many seem to have a selective memory.They seem to want to see things in absolutes. Like...Republicans are all pro Bush and pro war in Iraq.That's like me saying Democrats are all big government and pro taxes and poorly educated. This is a stereotype that I know is not true. We all have different opinions that don't always run along party lines.
Cbass
03-21-2004, 08:02 PM
It seems like a lot of people on this board are under the impression that all republican supporters are pro-Bush and anti-Iraq(or pro-war). This is not the case with many republican supporters. I am not a supporter of the war in Iraq but I am a supporter of a democratic government in Iraq. I am also a supporter of the Iraqi peoples freedom to choose who leads Iraq. I do not want the U.S. ,the U.N. or any other country choosing who leads Iraq. This is a choice that must be left up to the people. I know that the U.S. govt. will most likely try to put into power who they think will serve the U.S. interest the most but that would happen under any administration. This isn't issolated to the U.S. Any country in the world will behave similarly. Look at the history of most countries when in a similar position. All have tried to put in leaders who would best serve their interest. I am not defending this practice I am just saying that it happens.I said I am not pro-Bush on other occasions but it seems that many seem to have a selective memory.They seem to want to see things in absolutes. Like...Republicans are all pro Bush and pro war in Iraq.That's like me saying Democrats are all big government and pro taxes and poorly educated. This is a stereotype that I know is not true. We all have different opinions that don't always run along party lines.
Very well said! There are few things more offensive than being lumped with millions of other people into a category that people will attempt to use to define your opinion on a matter.
I realize that not all republicans are Bush supporters. There are many, like those in Buchanans camp, the old republicans, who detest the man as a neoconservative who is betraying the ideals of the republican party. Expanding the government, fiscal irresponsibility and reduction of personal freedoms are all the calling cards of the Liberals, are they not?
Very well said! There are few things more offensive than being lumped with millions of other people into a category that people will attempt to use to define your opinion on a matter.
I realize that not all republicans are Bush supporters. There are many, like those in Buchanans camp, the old republicans, who detest the man as a neoconservative who is betraying the ideals of the republican party. Expanding the government, fiscal irresponsibility and reduction of personal freedoms are all the calling cards of the Liberals, are they not?
DGB454
03-22-2004, 06:07 AM
Very well said! There are few things more offensive than being lumped with millions of other people into a category that people will attempt to use to define your opinion on a matter.
I realize that not all republicans are Bush supporters. There are many, like those in Buchanans camp, the old republicans, who detest the man as a neoconservative who is betraying the ideals of the republican party. Expanding the government, fiscal irresponsibility and reduction of personal freedoms are all the calling cards of the Liberals, are they not?
I see Bush as following his own agenda which was paid for by corporate America. That's just my opinion though and doesn't reflect the opinion of all republicans.
Are you trying to see what my definition of liberal is? If so then I will give you Websters which will suffice.
"A political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties."
I will add that on the surface being liberal seems to be a good thing but there are those that like to distort it. Just like everything else I suppose.
I realize that not all republicans are Bush supporters. There are many, like those in Buchanans camp, the old republicans, who detest the man as a neoconservative who is betraying the ideals of the republican party. Expanding the government, fiscal irresponsibility and reduction of personal freedoms are all the calling cards of the Liberals, are they not?
I see Bush as following his own agenda which was paid for by corporate America. That's just my opinion though and doesn't reflect the opinion of all republicans.
Are you trying to see what my definition of liberal is? If so then I will give you Websters which will suffice.
"A political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties."
I will add that on the surface being liberal seems to be a good thing but there are those that like to distort it. Just like everything else I suppose.
Cbass
03-23-2004, 09:54 PM
I see Bush as following his own agenda which was paid for by corporate America. That's just my opinion though and doesn't reflect the opinion of all republicans.
I'll second both statements there. Bush is definately pursuing his own agenda, which he shares with his cabal of neocons, which was indeed paid for by major corporations, and I'll second that most republicans either don't believe that, or won't admit it.
Are you trying to see what my definition of liberal is? If so then I will give you Websters which will suffice.
"A political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties."
I was merely using the common definition of "liberal" that I hear thrown around on television, in the papers, and in this very forum. Websters definition of a "conservative" is much less telling.
Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
I will add that on the surface being liberal seems to be a good thing but there are those that like to distort it. Just like everything else I suppose.
I would say I prefer the core ideology of liberalism to that of conservatism. The core ideology is a very small part of the picture however. Most of the people called liberals are in reality just moderate left wingers, and it's a name the right wingers tend to throw around as an insult. I don't think I've ever heard of a democrat refer to himself as a liberal. It's like the yuppie thing.
I'll second both statements there. Bush is definately pursuing his own agenda, which he shares with his cabal of neocons, which was indeed paid for by major corporations, and I'll second that most republicans either don't believe that, or won't admit it.
Are you trying to see what my definition of liberal is? If so then I will give you Websters which will suffice.
"A political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties."
I was merely using the common definition of "liberal" that I hear thrown around on television, in the papers, and in this very forum. Websters definition of a "conservative" is much less telling.
Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
I will add that on the surface being liberal seems to be a good thing but there are those that like to distort it. Just like everything else I suppose.
I would say I prefer the core ideology of liberalism to that of conservatism. The core ideology is a very small part of the picture however. Most of the people called liberals are in reality just moderate left wingers, and it's a name the right wingers tend to throw around as an insult. I don't think I've ever heard of a democrat refer to himself as a liberal. It's like the yuppie thing.
DGB454
03-23-2004, 11:01 PM
I do lean more towards conservatism. Mostly because of my Christian beliefs. I am not opposed to change as long as it's not destructive (which can mean a lot of different things) and as long as it doesn't hamper my freedom to express and practice my beliefs.
T4 Primera
03-24-2004, 03:04 AM
I'll second both statements there. Bush is definately pursuing his own agenda, which he shares with his cabal of neocons, which was indeed paid for by major corporations, and I'll second that most republicans either don't believe that, or won't admit it.
I'd agree the cabal is paid for by major corporations (think tanks, PNAC, lobbying etc). However the costs of implementing that agenda is being paid for with borrowed money at the expense of the present and future taxpayers in the US. THis cost may or may not be transferred to future generations of Iraqis depending how it pans out.
The cost is also being paid by the blood of people, none of whom are the people which push this agenda.
I'd agree the cabal is paid for by major corporations (think tanks, PNAC, lobbying etc). However the costs of implementing that agenda is being paid for with borrowed money at the expense of the present and future taxpayers in the US. THis cost may or may not be transferred to future generations of Iraqis depending how it pans out.
The cost is also being paid by the blood of people, none of whom are the people which push this agenda.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025