[OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.

[Crazy_Dog]

No love lost betew the US Army and Rumsfeld

http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_art...d=1144&sesid=2

[primitive]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
Here's a good example of why the people in Iraq fight us and how much they "love" Sadaam.

http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=24481

Is it all true? I don't know of course, but is has the ring of truth to it.

Geoschmo

It may be true, it may not be true (personally I am inclined to believe it is true).
But it does not change a thing. The question is not if (the majority of) the Iraqi people love Saddam, but if they will fight for their home country against an outside aggressor.

I think you underestimate the hatred for Western imperialism in the Arab world. Very few Iraqi would believe in your noble intentions of restoring democracy and free the oppressed people. Very few Europeans even belive that.

The reason I brought up the news is that we obviously read and watch the same stuff. I just find it strange that we would manage to come to so completely different conclusions.

[Master Belisarius]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
MB, that's a thought provoking article as well. It's not directly related to the disccussion Primitive and I were having as we were discussiong whether the average Iraqi supports the invasion, not whether those in teh neiboring countries do. But it's thought provoking nonetheless.

Noone has to convince me that the US policies in the past have been, to be kind, inconsistant. Our support for Isreal and the lack of pressure on them to resolve the Palestinian issue has been unconcionable.

Maybe we have learned something, or maybe the war with Iraq is just another example of that. If that's the case then all our effort in removing the threat of Saddam will as the saying goes just be sowing to the wind. I hope that is not the case. But for me the fear of repurcussions of action started and not finished is no greater than no action at all. Either way terrible things were coming. You can try to head them off knowing that you may fail in the attempt, or you can simply wait and be run over by them.

Geoschmo

I believed was related with your discussion with Primitive, because is another view to understand why some (or most?) Iraqi (Arab) people doesn't see the US forces as liberators.

[Crazy_Dog]

War's Military, Political Goals Begin to Diverge

http://www1.iraqwar.ru/iraq-read_art...d=1084&sesid=2

[Thermodyne]

It should be remembered that the Iraqi’s are survivors. They have learned over several
generations that to be noticed is not a good thing. And they have been conditioned to obey the
Saddam government without question. Also, we can’t blame them for not embracing America
and it’s troops. Their history is one of conquering despots replacing the despot that was in power. And lets not forget that those lucky enough to be from Saddam’s tribe, have a good
thing going with him in power. Once Saddam is gone, and they see that the US is going to give
them the opportunity to have a government that is by the people and for the people, they will
soften in their hatred of America. Also, once Saddam is gone, the silent survivor majority will
begin to say more. Last time they wagged their jaws at Saddam, they paid dearly. I for one
don’t hold their lack of a warm reception against them. The opposition by the people is actually
very small, the attacks by the paramilitary/people are very few, given the opportunities that the rapid advance to Baghdad has given them.

Note of the day would be the capture of a terrorist training camp, computers and records intact. I’m sure that quite a few terrorist SOB’s will not sleep well for the next few weeks. They will be waiting for the local police to kick the doors in on their homes in the west.

[primitive]

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
Once Saddam is gone, and they see that the US is going to give them the opportunity to have a government that is by the people and for the people, they will soften in their hatred of America.

I hope you are right.
I hope US give them the chance to prove you are right, by setting up a true democracy. Not just a puppet regime backed by US guns, while US companies (GWBs buddies) grows fat on "rebuilding" Iraq with Iraqi oil money.

And just to nitpick (You know I love that).
According to a definition earlier in this thread: It's "Freedom Fighters" not "Terrorists". Terrorists attacks Civilan Targets, Freedom Fighters attacks military targets.

[Thermodyne]

If it is against the rules of war as described in the Geneva Convention, then I think it should be called terrorism. To blow up a car and kill invaders in the process is the act of a patriot. To kill civilians that are trying to flee from the fighting is terrorism. To open fire under the protection of a white flag is terrorism. To kill and dismember POW’s is also something less than an act of patriotism; it is an act of savagery.

[primitive]

Thermo:
My personal definition would call all that terrorism, but then I call many of the actions done by coalition forces in Iraq Terrorism too.

It's all a matter of perspective.

[Roanon]

Note that there is a difference between what intentions the US have, what actions they actually do, and what people think about what they are doing.

There may be the intention to liberate the Iraq and install a democracy (though I doubt it, there is just too much oil involved). What actually goes on now is a war hurting a lot of civilians. And someone who used to live not in freedom but in relative safety in Iraq, and who now faces the danger of being killed by bombs and who is starving because he can't get food or water any more, who has a completely different religious and cultural background, who hasn't access to all the different sources of information - he is very unlikely to welcome the invading soldiers with open arms.

There is widespread disagreement and doubt about the altruistic intentions behind this invasion, even in the "free" world. Why should an even more biased Iraqi citizen share the US viewpoint? That seems to be simple to me, and I am still wondering about the US theory of a warm welcome and no resistance.

[geoschmo]

I seriously doubt anyone in the administration or the military thought there would be "no resistance". Otherwise why bother sending the military at all? That being said, it's clear there is more resistance in some places then we expected. The question that hasn't been answered is what is the source of the resistance.

Yes, civilians get hurt in war. War sucks. However the number of civilians killed and wounded to this point are small compared to even the number the regime has killed on it's own, and would kill in the future if left in power.

I think it interesting that people will try to make the argument that it is preferable to give up their chance at liberty to live in "safety" under a murderous dictator, and in this country we have people criticising the administration recently for trying to take some of our liberty in exchange for safety from the terrorists.

I'd also like to know why doesn't the Palestinian argument apply to the arab governments in the region as well? I completely agree the Palestinian issue is a terrible human tragedy that needs resolved. But isn't it rather hypocritical for them to insist that it be resolved before Saddam be removed from power, when he is responsible for more arab and Islamic deaths than the Isreali's?

Geoschmo