Iraqi crisis explained...

[The Giver]

There were far more demonstrations of celebration other than what took place in Paradise Square yesterday. There was wide spread celebrating through out central and southern Iraq.

 

[time]

I'm going based on what people tell me, not what I hear from the press. The press merely confirms what I'm hearing from real people I know. The Iraqi people are happy to get rid of Saddam and they are welcoming us because of the oppression they have been living under.

It must be wonderful to have such amazing intelligence concerning the opinions of all those Iraqis. And it's really remarkable that your press is confirming it.

Many of you would have rathered for the Iraqi people to suffer and avoid interfering/dealing with the dealings of the 'soverign nation of Iraq' and their corrupt dictatorship.

I guess you hadn't noticed that there's quite a few "corrupt dictatorships" about - many of them US allies. Unfortunately, we don't seem to have the resources (money) to go and beat them all up, let alone rebuild their shattered countries after they've had the crap bombed out of them.

You would have rathered that Saddam laugh in the face of the United Nations because they could not pull their fingers our of their asses long enough to smell what stinks in Iraq.

Truly cerebral, Clocker. I salute you.

 

[Clocker]

It must be wonderful to have such amazing intelligence concerning the opinions of all those Iraqis. And it's really remarkable that your press is confirming it.

time-
Many, many if the people here and in Dearborn have family in Iraq. I think they are much more informed about what the Iraqi people want/need than any other people in the US. They are supporting the removal of Saddam and his thugs.....so I am too.
C

 

[DrunkenBastard]

I was wondering whether they showed on US TeeVee the story on the father, showing the bloody shirt and pool of blood on the street where his young kid had been killed by a US bomb? And the look of hatred in his eyes as he told the camera that he would kill any Americans that he sees.

As for poor suspension, I don't think anything can exceed the quality of the Ford Focus. I thought we were beyond the era of wheels falling off, but there's always something to surprise you.

 

[bahngeist]

... think all those idiotic celebrities and defeatist politicians (as well as the French, Russians, Canadians, and everybody else who would rather just sit on the sidelines and let the people of Iraq suffer while they profit ...

To lump Canada in with France and Russia, particularly in respect of 'profit', is insulting to anyone Canadian or Quebecois. Although the Canadian gov't chose not to contribute actively, we do have some armed forces personnel attached to the ground forces, and we have three frigates on escort duty in the Persian Gulf (with a destroyer on its way). But more importantly: although many of us question the Bush government's motives, we are morally supportive of your troops and hope all return home safely.

What do you prefer Clocker: a friend who is basically a lick-spittle that does everything you ask without question; or someone who has their own mind and follows their convictions? Which would you respect more, and which would you trust if you were truly down with your back against the wall?

Given your proximity to Windsor, I am surprised that you don't give any indication that you have followed the CBC's coverage of the war. At least this way you may have a more balanced view of what is happening rather than the heavily skewed perspective (not quite, but almost propaganda) provided by the U.S. media.

My impression is that the present hostilities will soon come to an end. And not long following, there is a reasonably good chance that American and British troops will begin experiencing what the French army did in Algeria from the late fifties through early sixties. It was a given that the Iraqi army lost the conventional war even before it started; the guerilla war that may well possibly follow will be a totally different ball of wax in respect of minimal coalition casualities. And in the effort to contain it, America's respectively damaged world-wide reputation will be dragged down further by the countermeasures it may need to adopt.

Of course my hope is that peace will come quickly to that specific part of the world. But then, history has a unfortunate tendency to repeat itself. And this will likely happen if the U.S. is perceived by the people of that region as being a colonial occupation force. And despite the Bush administration's positively-spun rhetoric, in many respects their plans for Iraq do have a colonial stink.

 

[Dozer]

While there are those who have been liberated from the Saddam regime, there remain those that have been institutionalized under his rule (much like a prisoner), and there are those that are truly supportive of Saddam. Then there are those that have mixed feelings, happy to be out from under Saddam's rule, yet disturbed that it took foreign powers to make this happen, and a bit embarassed perhaps. Then there are those that will be downright angry about having foreigners invade and occupy their country. There will be those saddened by loss. Such is the result of many wars throughout history. It is never an easy road.

Having said this, I believe that majority of what I've read and seen seems to be genuine joy and excitement for being free of the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Was this worth cost? I believe so. And if you ask the majority of Iraqi citizens, I believe you would get the same response.

Victory, as shown throughout history, is never won without a price.

 

[Howell]

Sour grapes anyone?

OH. Is that how you make whine?

 

[CougTek]

If the war alone costs $130 billion, how much will reconstruction cost? Or will the Iraqis have to pay for that with oil?

Time hit the nail on the head. U.S and U.K. will both give big money contracts to companies of their respective countries (especially those who financially supported the party on power) and in return, they'll get oil for cheap.

The most ironic statement I've heard thoughout this entire war was from one of the allied leaders (don't remember which one, I think it was Blair), who said that finally, Iraqi would benefit from the oil richness of their country. Ha!

Like Tea wrote : "wait and see". Look at Iraq in one year and see the mess it will have become. Might not be worst than under Saddam's regime, but if anyone believes Iraq will be a country with a recovering economy and stable democratic system, I too have a bridge to sell...and cheaper than the one of Time . United States have never, ever, did that in any of the countries they've bombed since WWII. Might be time some of you figure it out. Or are you THAT hopelessly credulous?

I would be happpy to see a precedent this time, but I've seen enough that I simply no longer believe in it.


As for the mentality Hollywood is spreading to Americans... I went to see Tears Of The Sun Tuesday evening. I saw it mainly because I was bored and I didn't mind the propaganda it vehiculates. I immuned to it anyway and I watched it simply as an action movie. In this perspective, it wasn't bad. But at the end of the movie, there's a line written that sums up pretty well the belief of my southern neighboors in general (saw the translation, might not be the exact text written in the original version) : "Men of Evil can only win because of the inaction of Men of Good". Or something like that, you get the idea. I think the only "action" that pops up in the head of the redneck heeha! cowboys-like average Bush lovers is military action. For they apparently know no other means to change things ...and people.

 

[Jake the Dog]

suggesting my comments come from sour grapes is just plain STUPID. I would like nothing more that for this war to be exactly like it has been portrayed, but I have grave doubts and all I did was make it clear that I wanted more information from other more rleiable sources.

if anything, Clockers and Givers responses to Tea, time and my own opinions are real the sour grapes here because boo hoo hoo, we don't completely agree with them

 

[The Giver]

Sour grapes anyone?

OH. Is that how you make whine?

Apparently.

 

[Clocker]

Jake-
I could care less if you agree with me. But to think we can get an unbiased opinion about this from any country out there is pretty naive, imo. Where do you expect to get such an unbiased opinion? France, Germany, Russia, & China will all be biased....especially France. (I apologize for throwing Canada in with them...it was wrong and I admit it.)
All countries have alliances and agendas amongst eachother so I don't think a truely unbiased opinion from 'a country' will be found. IMO, the best we can do is look at the Iraqi people and their jubilation as well as their family members here in the states to draw an opinion as to how this will affect the Iraqi people. I believe even Al-Jazeera (spelling?) sees this as a positive event for the Iraqi people (I've only seem some limited coverage by them, though). That's pretty convincing in itself.

Whether or not Iraq ends up paying for this war with some oil revenue (somehow...not sure how), my guess is that if you asked an Iraqi person if they would spend a little oil money for their liberation, they would glady pay up.

Anyway, you are of course entitled to your opinion. I was a little abrasive this morning and I apologize! Sorry for the rude comments about sour grapes and crow..they were uncalled for. I was really tired and short tempered for some reason..... But, I still like re-reading my truely cerebral stinky finger line!! :wink:
C

 

[The Giver]

Jesus Kevin don't apologise to them! Your remarks were not offensive in the least. Had you called them "stupid", "moronic", "a complete fool" or insinuated that someone had a "major psychological problem", that would be one thing. But you didn't use any such language. Even your "stinky finger" remark was not made at anyone here in the forum. You'll be waiting a long, long, long time if you ever expect to get an apology out of them for their offensive remarks. Screw 'em, if they can dish it out - they best be prepared to be able to take it as well.

 

[CougTek]

my guess is that if you asked an Iraqi person if they would spend a little oil money for their liberation, they would glady pay up.

One of the several problems of your government is that it often guess or presumes, but seldom ask.

 

[Clocker]

my guess is that if you asked an Iraqi person if they would spend a little oil money for their liberation, they would glady pay up.

One of the several problems of your government is that it often guess or presumes, but seldom ask.

Hmmmm. Torture chambers and opression by Saddam or liberation at any cost. Not a very hard decision for just about anyone, IMO. But, maybe it would make sense to have a massive vote in Iraq so we are sure that the people of Iraq get what they want. If the Iraqi people want to live in terror, we can always give power back to Saddam (or what's left of him).

 

[Tea]

In this morning's paper, I read what is quite possibly the best balanced and most sensible account of the Iraq Crisis that I have seen. It's worth quoting in full.

On the streets of Baghdad yesterday, it was Kabul, November 2001, all over again. Then, enthusiasts for the war on terror were in triumphalist mood as the Taliban regime was overthrown. The critics had been confounded, they insisted, kites were flying, music was playing again and women were throwing off their burqas.

Seventeen months later, such confidence looks grimly ironic. For most Afghans, "liberation" has meant the return of rival warlords, harsh repression, rampant lawlessness, widespread torture and Taliban-style policing of women. Meanwhile, guerilla attacks are mounting on United States troops, and the likelihood of credible elections next year appears to be close to zero.

Just so. For some reason - just plain optimisim, I guess, I still harbour a reasonable hope that in Iraq it will be different. Perhaps there is some reason for this. Firstly, Iraq has oil, which translates into money, and while there certainly won't be enough to go around, Iraq will be a good deal better off than Afganistan, which, essentially, has none at all. That will help. Secondly, I think that there will be more international attention. Even Mr Shrub just might moderate some of his most outrageous and greedy plans in the light of international scrutiny.

(Tea, that's a forlorn hope. You are dreaming.)

(Maybe I am. But I can hope, can't I?)

In Baghdad and Basra, perhaps the cheering crowds have been a bit thinner on the ground than George Bush and Tony Blair might have hoped - and the looters and lynchers more numerous. But it would be extraordinary if many Iraqis didn't feel relief or euphoria at the prospect of an end to a brutal Government, 12 years of murderous sanctions and a merciless bombardment by the most powerful military machine in the world.

Afghanistan is not, of course, Iraq, though it is a salutary lesson to those who believe the overthrow of recalcitrant regimes is the way to defeat anti-Western terrorism. It would nevertheless be a mistake to confuse the present mood in Iraqi cities with enthusiasm for the foreign occupation now being imposed. Even Israel's invading troops were feted by south Lebanese Shiites in 1982 - only to be driven out by the Shiite Hezbollah resistance 18 years later.

More or less what I just said. There is some hope.

Nor does the comparative ease with which US and British forces have bombed and blasted their way through Iraq in any way strengthen the case for their war of aggression, as some seem to have convinced themselves. Not even the smallest part of the anti-war argument rested on any illusion that a broken-backed Third World regime could win a set-piece military confrontation with the most technologically advanced fighting force in history. Rather, the surprise has been the extent of the resistance and bravery of many fighters, who have confronted tanks with AK-47 rifles and died in their thousands.

In reality, the course of the conflict has strengthened the case against a war supposedly launched to rid Iraq of "weapons of mass destruction" - but which has now morphed into a crusade for regime change because evidence for the original pretext has so embarrassingly not materialised.

Excuse me while I add a little emphasis to this next bit.

Not only have US and British forces so far been unable to find the slightest evidence of Saddam Hussein's much-vaunted chemical or biological weapons. But the Iraqi regime's failure to use such weapons up to now, even at the point of its own destruction, suggests either that it doesn't possess any - at least in any usable form - or that it has decided their use would be militarily ineffective and politically counter-productive. Short of a last-ditch deployment in Tikrit or Mosul, the main pre-emptive pretext for war has already been exposed as a fraud.

And what cannot now be disguised, as US marines swagger around the Iraqi capital swathing toppled statues of Saddam with the Stars and Stripes and declaring "We own Baghdad", is the crudely colonial nature of this enterprise. Any day now, the pro-Israeli retired US general Jay Garner is due to take over the running of Iraq, with plans to replace the Iraqi dinar with the dollar, parcel out contracts to US companies and set the free-market parameters for the future "interim Iraqi administration".

Shashi Tharoor, the UN Under Secretary-General, warned the US against treating Iraq as "some sort of treasure chest to be divvied up", but the Pentagon, which is calling the shots, isn't listening. Its favoured Iraqi protege, Ahmed Chalabi - scion of the old Iraqi ruling class who last set foot in Baghdad 45 years ago - was flown into Nasiriyah by the Americans at the weekend and, almost unbelievably for someone convicted of fraud and embezzlement, is being lined up as an adviser to the finance ministry.

(Tea? About that optimisim of yours....)

(Yeah. It's looking pretty silly, isn't it. But damn it, Tannin, I still think there is some hope for the place, provided only that Blair can talk some sense into the Americans.)

(You are a true dreamer, Tea.)

And as the Bush Administration hawks circle Syria and Iran, a powerful boost to nuclear proliferation and anti-Western terror attacks seems inevitable, offset only by the likelihood of a growing international mobilisation against the new messianic imperialism.

The risk must now be that we will all pay bitterly for the reckless arrogance of the US and British governments.

 

[Tea]

While there are those who have been liberated from the Saddam regime, there remain those that have been institutionalized under his rule (much like a prisoner), and there are those that are truly supportive of Saddam. Then there are those that have mixed feelings, happy to be out from under Saddam's rule, yet disturbed that it took foreign powers to make this happen, and a bit embarassed perhaps. Then there are those that will be downright angry about having foreigners invade and occupy their country. There will be those saddened by loss. Such is the result of many wars throughout history. It is never an easy road.

I agree fully with this balanced, objective view, Dozer. Well posted. You go on to add:

Having said this, I believe that majority of what I've read and seen seems to be genuine joy and excitement for being free of the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. Was this worth cost? I believe so. And if you ask the majority of Iraqi citizens, I believe you would get the same response.

Victory, as shown throughout history, is never won without a price.

Here, I am not so sure. You may well be right. Or you may not. I think a great deal depends on the behaviour of the US over the next six months or so. The early signs are bad, but it's very early days yet. It is a lot harder to win the peace than it is to win the war, and this second, harder task, unlike the relatively simple task of winning military conflicts through the application of overwhelming force backed by high technology, is one that the US has only a patchy record in: some successes (especally post WW2), some spectacular failures too. Will American greed and arrogance triumph once again? Or that equally strong thread that runs through US history - restraint and fair-play? We will just have to wait and see. I hope you are right.

 

[Dozer]

It is a lot harder to win the peace than it is to win the war...

Absolutely! In many, many respects, the tougher battle lies ahead. I think many would believe that "hey, the battle's over, hooray!." But there is much to be done, especially considering the range of emotions of the Iraqi people. I can only hope, like you, that our leadership uses "restraint and fair-play" as the basis for their dealings with Iraq. I believe we can accomplish something historic here, or something catastrophic. After what I believe was a brilliant military plan (in your face, naysayers), we will need an equally brilliant diplomatic plan to make things work. Time will tell...

 

[Tea]

Dozer sez: "I believe we can accomplish something historic here, or something catastrophic. After ... a brilliant military plan ... we will need an equally brilliant diplomatic plan to make things work. Time will tell..."

Yup. Exactly.

Or, as my old friend Basil Fawlty would say: Now for the tricky bit!

 

[Howell]

While there are those who have been liberated from the Saddam regime, there remain those that have been institutionalized under his rule (much like a prisoner), and there are those that are truly supportive of Saddam. Then there are those that have mixed feelings, happy to be out from under Saddam's rule, yet disturbed that it took foreign powers to make this happen, and a bit embarassed perhaps. Then there are those that will be downright angry about having foreigners invade and occupy their country. There will be those saddened by loss. Such is the result of many wars throughout history. It is never an easy road.

I agree fully with this balanced, objective view, Dozer.

I may have to change my approach to these discussions. I had assumed that everyone was following the events from several news sources, both pro and con, and compiling an opinion from the various sources. After reviewing the responses in the thread, it seems not everyone is following the details as closely as others are. Thus, I would have considered Dozer's post as common knowledge.

I have been arguing from the standpoint of informing the nay-sayers, not providing the balanced viewpoint.

Another possibility is that extremist arguments are born of treating the discussers as extremists and arguing about the extremes rather than (even occasionally) acknowledging common middle ground. Some of us, myself included, could do more to acknowledge the other side’s valid points and reduce the inflammatory rhetoric.

Thank you, Dozer, for bringing a sense of civility and balanced discussion back to the thread.

PS. Sorry that I got personal T. This tall poppie hurts when cut.

 

[Howell]

For all those who say we don't get full reporting, I'd say you're right.
NY TIMES

 

[Tea]

Howell sez: Thank you, Dozer, for bringing a sense of civility and balanced discussion back to the thread. I second that.

And also: PS. Sorry that I got personal T. This tall poppie hurts when cut. Was that you? I confess to having semi-deliberately (in this thread) chosen to respond to posts, not personalities - i.e., I was turning a Nelsonian blind eye to the names on the posts, and aware that one or more of my US-based friends was a little grumpy, but vague as to which one (or two, or three - whatever). In any case, I was a little sharp myself. (Perhaps that is another reason for the blind eye - it's much easier to write a scathing post in response to "that idiot who said XYZ" than to "my friend Howell" (or Clocker, or Time or whoever I happen to be disagreeing with at any particular moment).

Besidez, I'm only an ape and I can never remember which one'z Howell and which one's Clippy.

 

[Tannin]

You're always disagreeing with someone, Tea.

(Yez, Tannin. Usually with good reason - because the usual particular perzon I'm usually dizagreeing with iz usually you!)

 

[Howell]

Besidez, I'm only an ape and I can never remember which one'z Howell and which one's Clippy.

I only log in as Cliptin if I'm at work, where I don't login automatically, and I forget. :-?

I'm trying to decide if Iraq's disinformation minister, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf would get different treatment if he stood at the microphone with a sock on his hand. Somehow, I think not.

 

[Howell]

For all those who say we don't get full reporting, I'd say you're right.
NY TIMES

Speaking of which:
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/02/28/arpubmg022803.htm

 

[Jake the Dog]

still no weapons of mass destruction found eh? surprise, surprise... :roll:

in typical Aussie pathetically apathetic style, our intelligence organisation still hasn't officially acertained whether there were any to begin with. my thought echo this former United Nations weapons inspectors thoughts.

sigh. I again refer you to the following:

 

[slo crostic]

It's about time someone brought up the lack of WMDs point, and it's about time George and his 'coalition of the willing' answered some questions. In my eyes if it is proven true that there never were WMDs in Iraq the US should be forced to answer to the UN for their actions, and immediately vacate Iraq. If the whole situation had have been reversed and Iraq had have attacked say Kuwait, due to suspicion of WMDs, the US, let alone the rest of the western world, wouldn't have stood for it without proof of said WMDs within the first month or so of occupation. Why aren't the powers that be being questioned about their complete disregard in this matter? And why isn't the UN stepping in and asking them to provide proof?
It seems Richard Butler is the only sensible person in any position to raise these issues.

 

[Jake the Dog]

I realise I'm stirring the pot here but nevertheless the lack of any WMD's being found it really really getting under my skin... anyone feeling like they were taken for a fool? (it's a hard thing to admit, I admit)

 

[Mercutio]

I am very angry about the whole affair.

Of course, I've been angry about it since before it started, but it really pisses me off that Colin Powell held up pictures of moving trucks - and that was the best evidence presented - and whole swathes of my countrymen fell for it.

It disgusts me. All the administration did was say over and over "Iraq is bad and will have nukes soon."... and people went along with it. Rational people the world over were saying "Where's the proof?" and all we got for our troubles was "Iraq is bad and will have nukes soon."

And I *still* want to know how all this works in to Al Queda.

 

[CougTek]

America, country of the freedom of speach, freedom of opinion and freedom of thoughts.

Support our troops. Together we stand. Let's liberate Iraqi people. Let's hit at the heart of Al Quaeda's greatest allied. Let's secured the world from the immense treat Iraq with Hussein is...

You know what's worst? It's that so many of you still believe in the above crap. Ok this time you didn't lose much in term of human lives, but what a bunch of idiots you're making yourselves to the rest of the world. Isn't it time to wake up a little? Your goverment nevers goes to war for the reasons advertised in your medias. So many passed so much time making fun of the French and Germans. Guess who's laughing now? "Ignorance is bliss" must be your country's moto.

 

[jtr1962]

And I *still* want to know how all this works in to Al Queda.

IRAQ

AL QUEDA

The connection is as clear as can be. :mrgrn:

 

[Fushigi]

And I *still* want to know how all this works in to Al Queda.

IRAQ

AL QUEDA

The connection is as clear as can be. :mrgrn:

So Québec is next?

 

[Howell]

All the administration did was say over and over "Iraq is bad and will have nukes soon."... and people went along with it.

All...please.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/23/clinton.iraq.sotu/

Be sure to read to the bottom.

 

[Jake the Dog]

hmm retractions and a maybe possible could be explanation... was the world not told by Bush, Blair and even our Little Johnnie that there was irrefutable evidence that Saddam had WMD's? does it not seem to anyone else that any evidence presented was empirical at best.

the sad fact is that so far the "coalition of the willing" have failed to deliver on promises made, promises that were used to garner support for the attack and occupation of another nation. would the US, Britain, Spain, Poland, Denmark or Australia find that acceptable if it were a friendly ally attacked by a foe under the same circumstances?

 

[Tea]

http://www.coxar.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

 

[Jake the Dog]

that link is dead Tea (and generates an ugly poker game pop-up :-? )

 

[Jake the Dog]

doh! excuse my brain fart, I get it now.

 

[Tea]

Sorry, I didn't realise there was a popup associated. I've never been there with an out-of-date browser before. :mrgrn:

 

[its.fubar]

Have those criminal lunatic in the white house and their criminal cronies in the pentagon found any Weapons of Mass Destruction yet ? or will it be another whitewash,when will that other criminal politician in the English parliament be thrown out of office ?

 

[Jake the Dog]

I live in hope that the intelligent majority of US, UK and Aus citizens finally realise that the WMD dribbled spewed forth by the leaders of these countries is, and always was total BS. maybe then these "leaders" will be held accountable for their Willfull Mass Deception.

 

[Jake the Dog]

slowly, the truth is coming out. this comes from Blix himself;

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/World/story_44590.asp