52 more Iraqis "Liberated" this weekend

[Mister Earl]

http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=193717

62 more Iraqis "liberated" today, in 10 simultaneous bombings.

Boy, it must feel good to be liberated.

Do you really consider Al-Queda to be liberators? Why?

 

[Thunder]

Do you really consider Al-Queda to be liberators? Why?

funny.

you clearly cannot grasp sarcasm.

 

[Segnosaur]

So my answer is, I don't know which was worse. Hussein was neutered and harmless by 2003...

I've seen that claim made before. While it is true that many of Saddam's worst abuses came in the 80s/90s, he was far from harmless in 2003. At that time he was involved in abuses of the Marsh Arabs, destroying the ecosystem that they lived in and killing/arresting dissidents.

Watch this. Notice how absolute devoid from the debate voices like this are. We just don't give a rip what the Iraqis think, which is why it's so ironic that the last remaining justification for this horrific episode of American history is "it was for their own good."

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/8998

I watched about half of this clip. Didn't have time to finish it.

Keep in mind that one of the people interviewed is a reporter from The Guardian, which some editors have said "it is no secret we are a centre-left newspaper" (see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/oct/16/uselections2004.usa2)

The other is from a university, and had repeated at least one of the "anti-war falsehoods".

I didn't see any bias on the part of the interviewer, but the selection of guests on the show made me question whether this article truly gave any sort of indication about "what Iraqis think".

 

[Mister Earl]

funny.

you clearly cannot grasp sarcasm.

I'm not getting anything you're putting in to this thread, to be honest with you. It doesn't make sense to me no matter how I cut it.

 

[TraneWreck]

I've seen that claim made before. While it is true that many of Saddam's worst abuses came in the 80s/90s, he was far from harmless in 2003. At that time he was involved in abuses of the Marsh Arabs, destroying the ecosystem that they lived in and killing/arresting dissidents.

Saddam was still awful, he just lacked the capacity to do much damage.

Are you seriously arguing that if we hadn't invaded 100,000 Iraqis would have been killed directly by violence, hundreds of thousands of more dead because of the violence and destruction of the nation, and millions turned into refugees?

That's the world we created. Saddam could have done a whole lot of evil and still fallen far short of the chaos we created.

I watched about half of this clip. Didn't have time to finish it.

Keep in mind that one of the people interviewed is a reporter from The Guardian, which some editors have said "it is no secret we are a centre-left newspaper" (see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/oct/16/uselections2004.usa2)

The other is from a university, and had repeated at least one of the "anti-war falsehoods".

I didn't see any bias on the part of the interviewer, but the selection of guests on the show made me question whether this article truly gave any sort of indication about "what Iraqis think".

What was the falsehood?

The interview is interesting for a number of reasons, primarily that Iraqi voices in the American media before and during the war were non-existant.

If it is argued for a reason other than a cynical attempt to justify the invasion after the other reasons proved false, that we removed Saddam for the good of the Iraqi people, I find it interesting that we never heard from the Iraqis.

Secondly, the interviews show how close to the mind of Iraqis the devastation caused by Gulf War I was. It would have been good to know this as it may have tempered our fanatical optimism of being greeted as liberators. They remember who destroyed their country the first time then starved them for a decade.

Finally, it's an interview with two people that simultaneously hated Saddam and hated the American occupation, which helps destroy that stupid false dichotomy, one advanced on this very thread, that opposing the American occupation means signing the praises of Saddam.

There are a number of other reasons why that interview is worth watching, but those jumped out at me.

 

[Thunder]

I'm not getting anything you're putting in to this thread, to be honest with you. It doesn't make sense to me no matter how I cut it.

and yet, you can't help but respond to my posts.

how's that work again?

 

[Segnosaur]

Saddam was still awful, he just lacked the capacity to do much damage.

What 'capacity' do you think he was lacking?

If you want to argue that he didn't have the capacity for building WMD, or for engaging in other major wars (like Kuwait/Iran) you might have a point. But he had more than enough military might to continue oppressing his own people. Heck, he was giving $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers (total amount paid was in the millions). That amount of money would have paid for enough bullets to shoot each and every Marsh Arab that ever existed.

Heck, the genocide in Rwanda was accomplished largely with machetes and other similar implements. I'm sure Saddam could have spring for a few hundred Simitars.

Or do you think bullets used in killing Iraqis have to be gold plated?

Keep in mind that one of the people interviewed is a reporter from The Guardian, which some editors have said "it is no secret we are a centre-left newspaper" (see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004...tions2004.usa2)

The other is from a university, and had repeated at least one of the "anti-war falsehoods".

What was the falsehood?

The one that sticks out was "the U.S. supported Iraq for 25 years" (or something along those lines). Maybe I miss-heard him, but the U.S. was not really a major supporter for any significant length of time. They did provide some assistance during the Iran/Iraq war, but for the most part Russia was the major ally and arms supplier for Iraq.

Granted, it was probably just a one-off comment meant to summarize a complex situation; it just struck me as wrong.

The interview is interesting for a number of reasons, primarily that Iraqi voices in the American media before and during the war were non-existant.

Perhaps. But just wondering... how exactly do you get to hear "Iraqi voices" when they live in a dictatorship?

Secondly, the interviews show how close to the mind of Iraqis the devastation caused by Gulf War I was.

Well, like I said, these were not exactly "the voice of Iraqis" themselves. One was a reporter, one was an author working at an American university.

Finally, it's an interview with two people that simultaneously hated Saddam and hated the American occupation, which helps destroy that stupid false dichotomy, one advanced on this very thread, that opposing the American occupation means signing the praises of Saddam.

But if you wanted a true debate, they should have had at least some people who supported the invasion. Heck, even some actual Iraqis who are living there now would have been a step up.

 

[TraneWreck]

What 'capacity' do you think he was lacking?

If you want to argue that he didn't have the capacity for building WMD, or for engaging in other major wars (like Kuwait/Iran) you might have a point. But he had more than enough military might to continue oppressing his own people. Heck, he was giving $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers (total amount paid was in the millions). That amount of money would have paid for enough bullets to shoot each and every Marsh Arab that ever existed.

Heck, the genocide in Rwanda was accomplished largely with machetes and other similar implements. I'm sure Saddam could have spring for a few hundred Simitars.

Or do you think bullets used in killing Iraqis have to be gold plated?

Saddam's death total is basically composed of 1) the Iran-Iraq War (by far the vast majority) and 2) gassing various groups within his country. As of 2003, he could do neither.

Sure, he could shoot people and imprison them and generally be an ass, but his primary means of chaos was gone. If he had even moved against the Kurds, we would have swiftly knocked him back.

But again, he would have to unhome about 15% of the country to achieve what we did. Do you think that was a realistic possibility? Was there enough of a chance that he would kill 150-300,000 of his own people between 2003 and 2010 that we needed to spend trillions of dollars and lose thousands of our servicemembers to keep that from happening?

He was impotent.

The one that sticks out was "the U.S. supported Iraq for 25 years" (or something along those lines). Maybe I miss-heard him, but the U.S. was not really a major supporter for any significant length of time. They did provide some assistance during the Iran/Iraq war, but for the most part Russia was the major ally and arms supplier for Iraq.

Granted, it was probably just a one-off comment meant to summarize a complex situation; it just struck me as wrong.

Perhaps. But just wondering... how exactly do you get to hear "Iraqi voices" when they live in a dictatorship?

There are countless ex-pats. Somehow we got a lot of info from Chalabi.

Well, like I said, these were not exactly "the voice of Iraqis" themselves. One was a reporter, one was an author working at an American university.

They were Iraqi citizens who lived under Saddam, then returned to Iraq after he was removed. It seems like someone working at a university would be the exact sort of fellow you'd want to give a reasoned opinion of the situation.

But if you wanted a true debate, they should have had at least some people who supported the invasion. Heck, even some actual Iraqis who are living there now would have been a step up.

It is a tragedy that the war proponents had such a tough time expressing their positions...

 

[portlandatheist]

I'm not getting anything you're putting in to this thread, to be honest with you. It doesn't make sense to me no matter how I cut it.

I think Parky's point is that Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq are innocent of any wrong doing here because they are not self actualized human beings in control of themselves like we are, they are like Palestinians in this regard. We on the other hand, have the power to make choices and they simply react to our poor choices like computer programs and that is why George Bush's misadventures abroad is ultimately responsible for their misbehavior. This is a similar to the notion that burned pot roasts cause domestic violence and short skirts cause rape.

 

[Virus]

Sanctions couldn't have been imposed indefinitely. The Iraqi economy had collapsed, poverty was widespread and Saddam was trying to push things towards a famine.

Sanctions were imposed to get him to comply with his obligations but it was clear he had gone mad and was never going to do that.

 

[TraneWreck]

Sanctions couldn't have been imposed indefinitely. The Iraqi economy had collapsed, poverty was widespread and Saddam was trying to push things towards a famine.

Sanctions were imposed to get him to comply with his obligations but it was clear he had gone mad and was never going to do that.

So we had to bomb them to keep them from starving.

Makes sense.

 

[Thunder]

I think Parky's point is that Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq are innocent of any wrong doing here because they are not self actualized human beings in control of themselves like we are, they are like Palestinians in this regard.

cute

 

[Meed]

Yes, and polling stations generally have people standing about that filter the traffic to them. If they're not from the right tribe or go to the wrong mosque they won't get in. If you have a group of people around willing to do brutal things if you don't vote the way they want, then they can do awful things to you, your family, and your tribe members. I wouldn't even trust the results if you surrounded the place with Iraqi Police. I'd put a fractional amount of trust into the results if it were guarded by NPs, and if there were a way to get people in and out of the polling station anonymously.

Any evidence of this? I would be very surprised if organizations such as the BBC was engaging in such dishonest polling. I'd be even more surprised if they were killing people and their families for not answering their polls the way they wanted.

 

[Virus]

So we had to bomb them to keep them from starving.

Makes sense.

Misleading statement. We didn't target civilians with saturation bombing. Air-strikes were surgical against military targets.

 

[Pardalis]

For the record, I don't blame America, I blame Bush/Cheney et al. When Bush was elected, who could have known the potential harm he would lead this country into. But that's what you get when you elect a President you'd like to have a beer with instead of one who was qualified to do the job. Even so, I don't think America is the right villain here.

What about, you know... the guy named Saddam Hussein? You know, he was the dictator of Iraq for thirty years.

Forgot about him already?

 

[Pardalis]

So we had to bomb them to keep them from starving.

Makes sense.

So we should have left them alone at the hands of a brutal dictator for another thirty years?

Makes sense.

 

[TraneWreck]

So we should have left them alone at the hands of a brutal dictator for another thirty years?

Makes sense.

If you consider no fly zones, regular bombings, sanctions, NGO's bringing in food and medicine, as well as continued weapons inspections "alone," then yes.

 

[Pardalis]

If you consider no fly zones, regular bombings, sanctions, NGO's bringing in food and medicine, as well as continued weapons inspections "alone," then yes.

And now there is no more no-fly zone, and no more sanctions, and NGOs still are providing food and medicine.

 

[Thunder]

I wonder how many more Iraqis will be "liberated" by next weekend.

 

[Pardalis]

Slow news day in Israel Parky? You decided to shift your trolling on Iraq?