COMMENTS:
It is quite blatantly the U.S and U.K governments and military who displayed a lack of understanding of the religious and cultural divisions in Iraq. They were the one who thought the Iraqy people would roll over and let their bellies be tickled once they invaded.
I don't think people blame every death on the military. They blame the situation as a whole on the military - and the government.. They have created a vacuum in which violence thrives. Obviously the suicide bomber is to blame for his/her suicide bombing.
Seems so.
Of course I have it on good authority that no matter what the outcome in Iraq, good or bad, the anti-war crowd will never consider it a success.
But WNC, how exactly can one say that about our governments when one could also argue that, regardless of how well you understand the culture or religion, you will still have the same problems with the different factions fighting one another. Also, I'm confused but the "roll over" after the invasion comment. The Iraqi people are not fighting the coalition forces, that is being done by foreign insurgence, the problem is, that just as before, the Iraqi people are fighting one another. We knew this was going to happen going in. In terms of fixing that, considering that it's been going on for thousands of years, I think it's a little unrealistic of ANYONE to think it will be mendable in just 2 or 3 years time.
You make a good point, jappy.
However, while I don't believe the US military *causes* every instance of animosity and violence, I do believe they exacerbate it and provide a focal point for it.
And I, for one, very much resent the idiocy that subjected our military men and women to such a situation, for so little reason/ return.
This ballot question seems similar to a situation where someone forces another person's hand into a cage with a venomous snake, and then rationalizes the action by pointing out the reptile's nature.
It doesn't excuse the one who forced the confrontation, to begin with.
Our leaders clearly didn't think this was going to happen when going in, otherwise we wouldn't have dispanded the security services and the army. That was the biggest mistake and clearly one that has made the situation far worse - even the ex British Home Secretary admitted that. We expected them to welcome us with open arms and except us a liberators. Clearly that was the case for many people, but not all.
The large majority of fighters in Iraq are not foreign -
news . bbc . co . uk / 1 / hi / world/middle_east / 4268904 . stm
Clearly it is only estimates, but some put it at 10%. With the majority ex Baath party members and Iraqy Sunnis.
Nobody is saying it's possible to fix it permanently, because the divisions run deep, but it i would have been relatively easy to control it, had out leader though about it.
*thought
It's the Bush neo-cons who didn't understand the history of Iraq. If they had, the U.S. would have never invaded Iraq in the first place.
"Even under Saddam this did not change as he killed hundreds, sometimes thousands of Shiite muslims, Kurds, and even his own Sunni muslims every week he was in power."
Every week? That's a load of bullshit. Thousands (with an S)? Lets do the math. Lets assume he killed 3,000 Iraqis a week. He was in power for 24 years, times 52 weeks, you get 1248 weeks of Saddam. 1248 times 2-3 thousands means that he bagged at least 3 million Iraqis, which is inconsistent with the findings of mass graves. Care to rephrase that. And you complain about me overexaggurating things.
Jappy, the anti-war has been anti-war since Veitnam. It's not about Iraq being unique, it's not about being anti-American. It's about the fact that the mission isn't being accomplished, billions are being wasted on a DOA war, and Bush is going on yet another crusade based on false pretenses and blatant lies. This has nothing to do with Iraq's history, it has mostly everything to do with America's present.
"Every week? That's a load of bullshit. Thousands (with an S)? Lets do the math. Lets assume he killed 3,000 Iraqis a week. He was in power for 24 years, times 52 weeks, you get 1248 weeks of Saddam. 1248 times 2-3 thousands means that he bagged at least 3 million Iraqis, which is inconsistent with the findings of mass graves. Care to rephrase that. And you complain about me overexaggurating things. "
I said 'hundreds, sometimes thousands', not 3000 a week, if you measured it out even by an average of 500 a week which is VERY believable given the nature of his rule, you will come up with numbers consistent to between 500,000 and a million, which is VERY believable.
^ don't bother, these are the same people who denied that the soviets were killing millions of their own citizens. Then when the truth came out they simply accuse you of jingoisim and mccarthyism.
^Mind to specify who "these people" are?
CORRECTION: Mind specifying who "these people" are?
I wasn't even old enough to know what the Soviet Union was when it was in it's prime. Man do you like to genenralize.
'Even under Saddam this did not change as he killed hundreds, sometimes thousands of Shiite muslims, Kurds, and even his own Sunni muslims every week he was in power.'
With weapjns supplied by the West.
Basically what youy are saying is that people shpuldnt moan when we kill people because Saddam killed people aswell? Being the great bringerts of democracy I would have thought we would try and hold ourselves to a greater moral standard than an evil dictator. And to say that its only foreign insurgents fighting the coalition troops- bollocks. The fact is that this is an illegal occupation of a soverign nation, and that in the process of 'liberating' the Iraqis thousands have been killed- 6000 at least in the last years. I have no doubt that 99.9% of our troops oover there a sound fellas just trying to do their best in a bad situation, but killing innocent Iraqis and then saying 'sorry, collateral damage', or trying to rationalise their deaths by talking about Saddam just doesn't cut it.
And Jappy, the last known massacre by Saddam took place in 1991. There were only some minor politicides after that. Doesn't make him a good person but don't make it seem like he was trying to kill all of the Kurds after 1991. If he wanted to, he could've easily done it in 13 years.
Would that be the massacre that took place after George Bush senior encouraged rebellion, promising US support, and then swiftly abandoned the Iraqi people to their fate?
|
