Perhaps Iraq Can Work After All
reasa
Join Date: 2002-11-10 Member: 8010Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2002-11-10 Member: 8010Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Iraqi citizens turn against real enemy</div> <a href='http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6229305/' target='_blank'>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6229305/</a>
Finally the people of Iraq are beginning to realize Americans are not their real enemy.
It's nice to see that they take things like the truce seriously, killing those foreigners who disobey it.
This may not be a big deal, but it certainly offers some hope.
Finally the people of Iraq are beginning to realize Americans are not their real enemy.
It's nice to see that they take things like the truce seriously, killing those foreigners who disobey it.
This may not be a big deal, but it certainly offers some hope.
Comments
My knee-jerk concern is what happens to the Iraqi insurgents-- presumably, they're trying to save their ****, but I'm wondering how we're going to process the fact that they've fought against us before, still consider themselves to be 'the resistance', and may take up arms again-- even if negotiations are successful.
But yeah, it certainly is a nice turn of events.
In my opinion, it's about time we gave them an ultimatium. I just hope it isn't too little too late.
*edit*
Have to respectfully disagree with you here <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Yeah, because getting rid of a dictator that regularly commited regular crimes against humanity wasn't a good idea.
Note that I do not support going to war with Iraq.
I'd like to point something out: A lot of Americans think that Iraqis NEED to be given democracy. Just like the Crusaders in the middle ages thought that Middle Easterners NEEDED Christianity. Noticing a super obvious, entirely liminal similarity that has been spelled out for you yet?
Two different things. The primary goal of one is changing their government when they could not themselves. The primary goal of the other is changing their culture and belief/value system.
Don't assume democracy means capitalism and the good ole' western way of life and values.
We're not trying to change their culture, just trying to give them a chance at some basic rights. You know, like not getting killed for saying you disagree. After a democracy is in place, nothings stopping them from electing a leader who is fundamintalist, if that's what they want. Just like there is nothing stopping us from electing someone from the communist party into office. We don't, because with the exception of a few, we don't want/agree with their ideals. But there is still a communist party.
Nobody is saying "You must have 2 main parties, republican and democrat, just like america, and pick one", although it's easy to think "america" when we say we're trying to install a democracy.
That's the whole point. A bill of rights and checks & balances gives them freedom of choice- something everyone should have, and something they haven't had before. Saudi arabia is a democracy, and they're pretty fundamentalist- I don't agree with some aspects of their culture, but if they decide they want change, they elect someone else. Just because you're a democracy doesn't mean you can't have fundamentalist, nationalist, communist (etc) policies and ideals and practices.
A bill of rights and checks and balances enable them to change power without bloodshed. Like a revolution every 4 years. Iraq's govt end up being nothing like ours, or it may decide to leave the old ways behind and pursue capitalism... the choice isn't ours, our job is just to get them on their feet and on their way.
This is just my opinion of course. Obviously it could be a giant conspiricy to make them more like americans for cheap oil and our democracy is just a trick to install a puppet government. I'm sure plenty are convinced this is what's going on, but in my opinion, setting up a democracy is a good thing and that in of itself isn't forcing them to be more western.
That isnt true. The Crusades had nothing to do with saving the souls of heathens, it was about sending those souls early to hell. They first went to "liberate" Jerusalem from the Infidel, and stayed on for a good time. Converting the Muslim's was attempted by the minor missionaires that operated before, during, and after the conflict - but no one suggested that as a reason to head on down to the Middle East. If an Arab wanted to curry favour with the Crusaders, they would sometimes "convert", but that wasnt a goal of the campaign. It was about killing, taking cities and holding them for Christendom/a hell of a lot of money.
Americans not doing them any favour rofl. I suppose building powerlines, restoring clean water and sewerage, distributing food and medical supplies, building hospitals and provide law enforcement is the same as sitting in the base playing cards....
These insurgents dont just strike Americans, they kill Iraqi's signing up for police work, they blow up utilities that the Iraqi people wish to use. The people of Iraq are not so stupid that they 100% blame the Americans when a sewerage pipe explodes because of an insurgent bomb. There is a lot of negative sentiment directed at both the Americans and the insurgents.
But they had power, water, services etc. before the war. We're rebuilding what we blow to tiny bits or triggered to be razed. The people went from fearing for their lives because of a ruthless dictator to fearing for their lives because of equally violent but less centralized threats. It will be a long time, if ever, before the Iraqi people see any gain from this. Until then, life is the same endless struggle as ever. You can't live on promises, nor voting.
The same goes with the extremists. Even if Muslim scholars didn't decry their justifications as being distortions of the religion and their killing and looting were somehow justified, idealism doesn't exactly put bread on the table. The civilian population of Iraq is simply a casualty of war to them.
I support a social change on behalf of the Iraqi people, but we went in with very heavy footsteps. War isn't exactly the only way to bring about progress, and even if war were the best solution, we bungled it.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
What about the dictators in South-America in the 60s and 70s? They killed lots of people and most of them had the support of USA. (e.g : Chile , Argentina , Brazil , many countries in Africa)
Maybe because there isnt Oil?<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->?
But they had power, water, services etc. before the war. We're rebuilding what we blow to tiny bits or triggered to be razed. The people went from fearing for their lives because of a ruthless dictator to fearing for their lives because of equally violent but less centralized threats. It will be a long time, if ever, before the Iraqi people see any gain from this. Until then, life is the same endless struggle as ever. You can't live on promises, nor voting.
The same goes with the extremists. Even if Muslim scholars didn't decry their justifications as being distortions of the religion and their killing and looting were somehow justified, idealism doesn't exactly put bread on the table. The civilian population of Iraq is simply a casualty of war to them.
I support a social change on behalf of the Iraqi people, but we went in with very heavy footsteps. War isn't exactly the only way to bring about progress, and even if war were the best solution, we bungled it. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I believe it was bungled because, like Bremer said, you guys needed more troops. But I'll let the asskicking take place over at US high command.
Quite a few Iraqi's didnt actually have water and electricity before the war. The local university magazine Semper Floreat, was talking about propaganda. (I actually thought they'd changed the name and just came flat out and admitted the purpose of the magazine when I saw "PROPAGANDA" splashed all over the cover, these are very extremist left wingers), and to their credit, whilst slamming what they called "US propaganda over the Iraq war", they mentioned that newspapers would say things like "British seige Kabala, city without water, electricity" - when that town hadnt had these things for years.
It would definately be a different story in Baghdad, but even so - its the Americans trying to set the utilities back up now, if they cant see the benefits that will flow from that, then no one can save them from themselves.....
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> What about the dictators in South-America in the 60s and 70s? They killed lots of people and most of them had the support of USA. (e.g : Chile , Argentina , Brazil , many countries in Africa)
Maybe because there isnt Oil?confused-fix.gif?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The US has an ugly past, and deserves to be criticised for their handling of these nations, but let's not urinate on their current efforts to bring peace to Iraq. Sure, the yanks want a peaceful democratic nation that keeps cheap, regular oil flowing to the US, and that may be at the forefront of their mind, but they will still be making things heaps better for Iraq. If a man is doing the right thing while also angling to get something out of it himself, I'm not going to stop him.
just wondering..
you say the US Army isn't doing them any favors.. what about the US Marine Corps? or the US Navy? or the US Air Force?
maybe you meant the US military <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The Crusades were a response to the Islamic religious invasion that was occuring. Islam was at the gates of Paris, and Christianity responded violently to what it correctly perceived as a threat to its existence at the time. Good or bad, wrong or, I just want to make sure facts are known.
Now, we in the U.S.A. believe that Freedom is a Human Right. It's what the country was founded on, after all. Giving people freedom is an honorable thing, even if there are advantages on hand for us as well. I'd like to see us weaned off of oil (since some of the technologies on the forefront will basically eliminate super energy companies), but since no techs are ready to pull the weight right now, we need to make sure that the U.S. of A keeps getting energy.
So, in a sense, I've spelled out the real deal for you. How do you feel?
The Crusades were a response to the Islamic religious invasion that was occuring. Islam was at the gates of Paris, and Christianity responded violently to what it correctly perceived as a threat to its existence at the time. Good or bad, wrong or, I just want to make sure facts are known.
Now, we in the U.S.A. believe that Freedom is a Human Right. It's what the country was founded on, after all. Giving people freedom is an honorable thing, even if there are advantages on hand for us as well. I'd like to see us weaned off of oil (since some of the technologies on the forefront will basically eliminate super energy companies), but since no techs are ready to pull the weight right now, we need to make sure that the U.S. of A keeps getting energy.
So, in a sense, I've spelled out the real deal for you. How do you feel? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First of all, Islam is a set of religion concepts and values. Islam cannot be at any 'gate' just as Hinduism cannot go to the mall to buy a pair of underwear. Be specific in your language and differentiate between Islam and Muslims.
You also say that the Crusades were a 'reaction' to 'Islam on the gates of Paris'. In the Battle of Tours in 732, the Moors were defeated by Charles Martel at 'the gates of Paris' and Muslim expansion into western Europe was stopped. 363 years later, in the First Crusade Christian armies marched towards Jerusalem. Direct cause and effect? I don't think so. Please don't pretend you have all the facts when its plain that you don't.
You say that 'giving' freedom is 'honorable'. Thank goodness that most of the world doesn't believe in 'giving' (read: invading and forcing) their values on other societies. I could argue that your conceptualization of 'freedom' and 'human rights' as universal concepts is flawed, but I'm not sure that making the argument would be worth my time. But even <b>you</b> must realize that the actions the United States administration takes abroad does in not way support those notions of 'freedom' for the rest of the world. Otherwise, it would not be propping up authoritarian regimes in the Middle East, nor would it be supplying weapons to repress the 'freedoms' of Palestinians!
Thanks for 'spelling out the real deal!'
EDIT: You also make it sound like the Crusades were purely a military reaction to the military threat of Islam. You forget (like I forgot) the ideal of 'liberating the Holy Land' from the 'heathens'. Also, let's not discount the economic benefits of the Crusades: the spoils of war. Perhaps a modern parallel can be drawn?
Open trade routes between Europe and the Middle East back then would most likely transport precious metals, spices, ingredients for foods, as well as technologies. Ironically i dont think Oil (as in crude oil, not baking oil) was traded/transported. Never the less, it was still quite profitable.