I am just wondering what you all think...It is beginning to look a bit like we opened the door to get rid of the cat, and inadvertently let in 500 tigers..There is no doubt that he was a Despotic tyrant, who let his own sons behave like terrible thugs, and others...but ..was his way of ruling Iraq, bloody as it may have been, more successful at containing the carnage being endured now? Let me say now, that I have NO IDEA as to what is really happening, only information from the media..which is no way to get the truth.And so, I will be interested to learn, from better informed people, the reality.Just how long do you go on getting killed and maimed, and seriously injured, trying to tame an animal which has no desire to accept your ideas of how it should behave? Does Iraq, in reality, need a Sadaam ? Responsible replies,please, from either side of the divide!!
------------------ fierofetish.PFF'S self-confessed Snowbird!! Responsibilty: the solution for our World's Dilemmas..
IP: Logged
09:22 AM
PFF
System Bot
Wichita Member
Posts: 20709 From: Wichita, Kansas Registered: Jun 2002
Saddam killed thousands of his own people and has been in war for over a decade. I'm talking about the Iran/Iraq war, which was really brutal.
These bombing we see day in and day out in Iraq from the media are just that. Terrorist bombing. What is the average? Like 5 people a day? I know that it is unacceptable and we do not want any terrorist bombing anywhere.
But more people in America get shot and killed from gang fights, drug scuffles, robberies... You name it. We have our own problems in America that make it dangerous as well. We might not have as many bombings as Iraq does, but we sure have our plague of unwanted thugs who produce fear in our own country.
Another thing we have to watch out for is Liberals and Evangelicals... Although not dangerous, they seek to create a dictatorship or theocracy in our country that is also not wanted.
The U.S. put Saddam in power. The U.S. took him out of power. I don't know of a good solution to our Iraq problem but we definitely have a lot of responsibility for the current situation. We were all for Saddam's mass killings as long as he was murdering communists in his country with our help. From 1959 until 1990, he was our best buddy. His invasion of Kuwait without our permission suddenly made him "evil incarnate."
Thanks for that link.I read it with interest. It does seem to confirm other comments I have heard since the first Iraq War.If it is true, then the Powers-that -be, whether then, or now, have an awful lot to answer for.The hypocrisy(that still doesn't look correct!!) over the years is really coming home to roost..
quote
Originally posted by WampusCat:
The U.S. put Saddam in power. The U.S. took him out of power. I don't know of a good solution to our Iraq problem but we definitely have a lot of responsibility for the current situation. We were all for Saddam's mass killings as long as he was murdering communists in his country with our help. From 1959 until 1990, he was our best buddy. His invasion of Kuwait without our permission suddenly made him "evil incarnate."
Thanks Fierobear. I fully understand your point..but there is the question as to whether the people who died under his Regime,were killed for subversion,etc..how many of them were innocents,compared to today's victims? It is a question which is virtually unanswerable, I know...but I am sure that the victims in the West were not deserving of their fate, in any way..
quote
Originally posted by fierobear:
We should do a comparison with how many were killed by Saddam, when he and his animals were in power.
It would be interesting to see any information regarding this.. Nick
IP: Logged
10:26 AM
Blacktree Member
Posts: 20770 From: Central Florida Registered: Dec 2001
These are some links that turned up in a Google search for "Iraq Mass Grave".
It would seem that during his regime, Saddam Hussein killed several million of his own people. But since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, only about 20,000 Iraqis have died. This includes civilian casualties during the invasion, as well as the terrorist bombings.
That's about 20K in 2 years... an average of 10K per year. Under Saddam's rule (about 40 years) the average deaths per year were about 10 times as much.
I'm still shocked and amazed that you would actually think that living at the whim of a genocidal despot would be preferrable to anything else?!?!
[This message has been edited by Blacktree (edited 07-19-2005).]
Thanks Blacktree..I have read each linked article. My first conclusions (I won't go into my feelings of revulsion..take that as read, please):
The figures quoted vary enormously between reports, and I think your statement regarding "millions" is not substantiated..half a million seems to be a general estimate. A timescale of when these mass murders occured also seems to be overlooked in the reports..it has been going on for more than 30 years..and so, half a million (and that figure includes people who might have escaped to other lands, by the way), divided by say 35 years, is more like 14.000 per year on average.Just suggesting that 20% escaped to other places, leaves just over 10.000 a year.I doubt very much that this wholesale murder was a daily event.More likely triggered by local uprisings and defiant dissent. About the same as the deathrate now. I welcome any and all comments on this. My whole thought process behind this, is that most of these horrendous killings went on because of diversity of religions, and the search for power by the leaders. Can you see the replication going on now, in the West? So many Nationalities, faiths and beliefs gathering together in Western cultures? We are not too far short of our own holocausts, I am afraid.It only takes a couple of maniacs to stir up hate and unrest, to start the fires burning here.God forbid....
I'm still shocked and amazed that you would actually think that living at the whim of a genocidal despot would be preferrable to anything else?!?!
I didn't advocate that. I was just pointing out that: 1. The American and UK government spent 35 years believing, and allowing just that.. 2. There are many many thousands in the World would regard the present Leaders of being just that..whether by actual involvement, or by just standing by, allowing it to continue in so many other Countries. And the Hipocrisy of allowing it to continue, in their eyes, is as damning as actually partaking in the slaughter.
------------------ fierofetish.PFF'S self-confessed Snowbird!! Responsibilty: the solution for our World's Dilemmas..
[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 07-19-2005).]
IP: Logged
11:29 AM
Tugboat Member
Posts: 1669 From: Goodview, VA Registered: Jan 2004
Not exactly. And if you think India, Africa (wherever that is) and the United States have parallel histories....
"President Bush, too, seems to miss the point. "We're not an imperial power," he insisted in his press conference on Tuesday. Trouble is, what he is trying to do in Iraq — and what is going wrong — look uncannily familiar to anyone who knows some British imperial history. Iraq had the distinction of being one of our last and shortest-lived colonies. "
"First, let's dispense with Vietnam. In South Vietnam, the United States was propping up an existing government, whereas in Iraq it has attempted outright "regime change," just as Britain did at the end of World War I by driving the Ottoman Turks out of the country. "Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators," declared Gen. Frederick Stanley Maude — a line that could equally well have come from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld this time last year. By the summer of 1920, however, the self-styled liberators faced a full-blown revolt."
Originally posted by Tugboat: "President Bush, too, seems to miss the point. "We're not an imperial power," he insisted in his press conference on Tuesday. Trouble is, what he is trying to do in Iraq — and what is going wrong — look uncannily familiar to anyone who knows some British imperial history. Iraq had the distinction of being one of our last and shortest-lived colonies. "
We aren't acting as an imperial power because we won't keep Iraq, we will leave. That's a pretty big difference.
quote
"First, let's dispense with Vietnam. In South Vietnam, the United States was propping up an existing government, whereas in Iraq it has attempted outright "regime change," just as Britain did at the end of World War I by driving the Ottoman Turks out of the country. "Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators," declared Gen. Frederick Stanley Maude — a line that could equally well have come from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld this time last year. By the summer of 1920, however, the self-styled liberators faced a full-blown revolt."
We aren't facing a full-blown revolt. We are facing a terrorist insurgency, a very small percentage of the people of Iraq are involved. In fact, reports are that most of the insurgents are from outside Iraq.
Yeah right we'll keep Iraq, although it'll be as our puppet and not as our colony. Big difference . So where is my lowered gas prices?
It would also make sense that most of the terrorists are coming from outside Iraq, from places like Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, since those are the places we should have hit instead of Iraq.
------------------ I am the signature virus, please put me in your signature so I can spread
IP: Logged
03:46 PM
trailboss Member
Posts: 2069 From: Gilbert, Arizona Registered: Feb 2003
Most of all the killing done by terrorists is the work of "insurgents", which by definition is radical islamist's from outside the nation of Iraq. The majority of Iraqi citizens have not taken up arms against America, the friends of Saddam that lost their power are pissed though.. you want to read unfiltered reports of what is truly going on in Iraq, I suggest that you read Michael Yon's blog, he is an embedded reporter over there. He has filed story after story about the enthusiastic response that the soldiers recieve from the majority of the population.
Don't get me wrong. Saddam is a mean sob, but the way I see it while he and his men were in power I did not hear of these sucide bombers in Iraq like we do now. So my theory is that he was so mean and told anyone if they tried anything with the Iraq government that he would cut their tongue out. They were afraid to do what they wanted to do because of him. So we went in and brought Saddam out and all of these terrioust said oh boy now we can do what we been wanting to do. And that is what they are doing. Put Saddam and his men back in power and the bombings will stop, because he is so mean that he will kill all of them including women and children. As I have said before you have got to forget about the inocent and blow hell out of them, this is the only way it will stop. The atom bomb killed thousands of inocent men, women, and children but it ended the war and now Japan is in better shape than the US. I think our biggest problem is the big shots in washington. someone in the USA is giving information to these terrorist because I just cannot see how they would know as much as they do. These are well planed attacts. Don
Don't get me wrong. Saddam is a mean sob, but the way I see it while he and his men were in power I did not hear of these sucide bombers in Iraq like we do now. Don
I say your logic is flawed. Why would any terrorist go against a government that would allow them to train and promote their cause against US? The war on terror has brought this to a head. Our government and GWB had sense enough to keep the main battle ground on the other side of the globe.
"As I have said before you have got to forget about the inocent and blow hell out of them, this is the only way it will stop"
Yes that is eaxctly the mentality of of suicide bomberand why Alqueda seeks weapons of mass destruction.What they want to stop is the USA and the west interference to a world they invision.
Trailboss, The definition of an insurgent is someone within the country trying to overthrough the legal government, not by definition people outside the country. Exactly the opposite.. Insurgency is a violent act of rebellion.
[This message has been edited by Wolfhound (edited 07-19-2005).]
Trailboss, The definition of an insurgent is someone within the country trying to overthrough the legal government, not by definition people outside the country. Exactly the opposite.. Insurgency is a violent act of rebellion.
Then the term "insurgent" doesn't apply. I don't know what to call them, but most of them are coming in from outside the country. Terrorists? Definately. Do you have a better term? I wish I did.
IP: Logged
06:56 PM
lurker Member
Posts: 12355 From: salisbury nc usa Registered: Feb 2002
Originally posted by Wolfhound: Trailboss, The definition of an insurgent is someone within the country trying to overthrough the legal government, not by definition people outside the country. Exactly the opposite.. Insurgency is a violent act of rebellion.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: Then the term "insurgent" doesn't apply. I don't know what to call them, but most of them are coming in from outside the country. Terrorists? Definately. Do you have a better term? I wish I did.
the nativity of "insurgents" appears to be irrelevant.
merriam-webster: "1 : a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government; especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent" wikiopedia: "An insurgency is an armed rebellion by any irregular armed force that rises up against an established authority, government, administration or occupation"
[This message has been edited by lurker (edited 07-19-2005).]
I say your logic is flawed. Why would any terrorist go against a government that would allow them to train and promote their cause against US? The war on terror has brought this to a head. Our government and GWB had sense enough to keep the main battle ground on the other side of the globe.
Youc really feel that safe, Butter? You don't think the War is spreading to over here. or there? The training camps and terrorist centres would appear to have been more in Afghanistan.Saddam was a mean b*st*rd, and wasn't going to share with anybody.I have to agree with Don here.These People need to be ruled with a fist of iron, unfortunately.The Battlefield is no longer confined to the Middle East.And to be quite honest, I think the US Government is so smug about its' fire-power capacity,it has forgotten that Muscle does not, and never will, overcome guile,cunning and animal instinct....unless you blow it all away.How come the Russians cannot tame a bunch of Peasant Rebels in Chechnya? Can't you see that if you can't see what you are shooting at, you probably won't hit it.The rules of Warfare have changed beyond recognition, in the case of Terrorism...the Right must change too, and you can only fight fire with fire. Dirty tricks beget dirty tricks...or else you are going to lose. We judge the population, and attitudes, of the Iraqis, by our own standards of ethics...and you know what happens then.....A street fight: one guy is an honorable sporting person, and capable of beating his opponent. So he squares up, presents his gloves to the opponent, in time-honoured tradition, and the opponent kicks him straight in the crutch..and if that wasn't bad enough, he doesn't stand back and allow the man to get his wind, and his marital equipment, onto a stable footing.Oh no. he pulls a knife, and stabs the guy through the heart.That is what our armed Forces are up against, and with the Media stabbing them in the back from the safety of their offices, by condemning a bit of tit for tat carried out to level the playing fields, and make these people realise that we won't fight by the Queensberry rules if they choose not to, no wonder if they become dis-heartened.GIVE them the same leeway that the Terrorists TAKE for themselves. Fight a dirty attack with dirty payback.Or lose.Time to stop protecting these Foreign Countries from the diseases they engender and nurture. Protect your own Countries from the Shores inwards, and use Military might to deliver telling, and frightening warnings to the others to behave, from the skies, via Marine backup.Hit and duck, hit and duck...they would soon get the message.....or maybe not...
------------------ fierofetish.PFF'S self-confessed Snowbird!! Responsibilty: the solution for our World's Dilemmas..
[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 07-19-2005).]
IP: Logged
07:23 PM
Wolfhound Member
Posts: 5317 From: Opelika , Alabama, USA Registered: Oct 1999
Lurker, I know it,s not important but are we insurgents in Iraq? If nativity is unimportant, we were.
I,m not buying the "Most of them are coming from the outside of the counrty" rap. Some are from outside Iraq, I,d guess 10 %, but if you notice the Iraqi on Iraqi attacks, that make up the largest casualty figures you should know something. Everybodys afraid to say it, but what you're seeing is a civil war in the mist of an occupation.
The fact is we can not provide the internal security or the border security that an occupying force is responsible far.
[This message has been edited by Wolfhound (edited 07-19-2005).]
IP: Logged
07:43 PM
PFF
System Bot
lurker Member
Posts: 12355 From: salisbury nc usa Registered: Feb 2002
Originally posted by Wolfhound: Lurker, I know it,s not important but are we insurgents in Iraq? If nativity is unimportant, we were.
wikipedia had another definition which i did not quote, which stated that the term "insurgent" is by nature political, telling as much or more more about the speaker as the insurgents. call them insurgents, guest fighters, military advisors, allies, or whatever you like. in the sense that the US considered saddam's rule to be illegitimate, then yes, we could be called insurgents too. i find semantics wearisome.
quote
Originally posted by Wolfhound: Everybodys afraid to say it, but what you're seeing is a civil war in the mist of an occupation.
no argument with this. we're seeing two local groups fighting it out with help from outside powers, US on one side, "insurgents" on the other. i'm sure the russians felt the same way when we were helping osama throw them out of afghanistan.
quote
Originally posted by Wolfhound: The fact is we can not provide the internal security or the border security that an occupying force is responsible for.
which also seems to have been an ongoing problem in afghanistan. if we hadnt relied on locals to secure the border with pakistan, osama probably wouldnt have escaped tora bora. would osama's death have ended the "War on Terror"? no, but a serious setback for al-queda, certainly more effective than attacking saddam. now, we're apparently whining to syria that they're not doing enough to close their border with iraq. really, THE NERVE of those syrians!
well, duh.
if i were syria and the US was making threatening noises, i'd do everything in my power to inconvenience the US.
we are already spread thin, and driving the economy into the ground to make the army look more appealing is not going to solve the problem.
[This message has been edited by lurker (edited 07-19-2005).]
IP: Logged
08:14 PM
Wolfhound Member
Posts: 5317 From: Opelika , Alabama, USA Registered: Oct 1999
The fact is, there doesn't seem to be any good solutions at this point. Kind of like being half way though a car wreck. You want to leave but it's too dangerous to get out.
IP: Logged
08:33 PM
Jul 20th, 2005
trailboss Member
Posts: 2069 From: Gilbert, Arizona Registered: Feb 2003
Originally posted by Butter: I say your logic is flawed. Why would any terrorist go against a government that would allow them to train and promote their cause against US? The war on terror has brought this to a head. Our government and GWB had sense enough to keep the main battle ground on the other side of the globe.
The only terrorist training camps in Iraq were in the northern part, where Saddam had no control. That part was controlled by our buds, the Kurds. But I'm sure you've heard that before and being informed on this won't stop the misinformation, will it?
GL
IP: Logged
06:52 AM
Scott-Wa Member
Posts: 5392 From: Tacoma, WA, USA Registered: Mar 2002
I find it interesting that everyone seems to latch onto the claim that the 'insurgents' are coming from outside Iraq. If so... how? Are they flying in on commercial flights? Walking across the borders with Ak47's and RPG laubchers with no one noticing? Maybe there is a tourbus company bringing them in on a special deal "Come to Iraq and die repelling the infidel that kicked out the other infidel!"
Organized fighters that sure seem to know the area well for people coming in from elsewhere. I don't seem to recall any external forces (before us) coming in to fight on the behalf of the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam who was hated by the Taliban and other religous extremist groups.
I suspect the insurgents are mostly fragmentary groups in a tribal society led by various warlords/religous leaders as they have been for a thousand years or so. One thing Saddam did do was unify his country by crushing all opposition since he knew his own people. The Kurds were the one group barely contained, he did have the religous extremists contained along with everyone else through fear.
IP: Logged
01:58 PM
Voytek Member
Posts: 1924 From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada Registered: Jan 2001
I find it interesting that everyone seems to latch onto the claim that the 'insurgents' are coming from outside Iraq. If so... how? Are they flying in on commercial flights? Walking across the borders with Ak47's and RPG laubchers with no one noticing? Maybe there is a tourbus company bringing them in on a special deal "Come to Iraq and die repelling the infidel that kicked out the other infidel!"
Organized fighters that sure seem to know the area well for people coming in from elsewhere. I don't seem to recall any external forces (before us) coming in to fight on the behalf of the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam who was hated by the Taliban and other religous extremist groups.
I suspect the insurgents are mostly fragmentary groups in a tribal society led by various warlords/religous leaders as they have been for a thousand years or so. One thing Saddam did do was unify his country by crushing all opposition since he knew his own people. The Kurds were the one group barely contained, he did have the religous extremists contained along with everyone else through fear.
How are Mexicans getting into the US? Flying over? Or walking over with nobody noticing?
Except for one difference: most of the Iraq / Syria border is in the desert or semi-desert with nobody patrolling it for tens (if not hundreds) of miles.
Yeah, once on the inside they may need a bit of help. I'm certain there's a few Iraqis here and there who are willing to help the insurgency.
On the other hand, the vast majority probably want to live in peace.
Common sense suggests that the insurgents probably aren't locals. Why else would they kill their own people by the dozens? It is the goal of those people to show that the US has only worsened the situation in Iraq.
It is their goal to get us to have conversations such as the one at hand; to make the world question US motives, to make the world hate the US and to destroy American reputation for brining peace. And to achieve this goal they will kill as many innocent women and children as they can.
Let's face it: Saddam was a killer and his people are better off without him. We're probably better off without him as well. But we have to stop blaming ourselves (US, Britain, etc) for causing these terrorist attacks and concentrate our anger on the perpetrators.
------------------
IP: Logged
02:57 PM
Jul 21st, 2005
lurker Member
Posts: 12355 From: salisbury nc usa Registered: Feb 2002
Originally posted by Voytek: But we have to stop blaming ourselves (US, Britain, etc) for causing these terrorist attacks and concentrate our anger on the perpetrators.
actually we need to do both.
i'm not saying that US policy justifies suicide bombers and the like, but our actions have contributed to the situation. it's not that unusual for the US to put a dictator in power and support him in ways that are contrary to our stated goals of promoting freedom, peace and democracy. sometimes these radicals are a response to things we set in motion.
so we need to kill these terrorists, and re-evaluate our policies. i see no reason why we cant work on both at the same time.
IP: Logged
02:36 AM
Jul 24th, 2005
Scott-Wa Member
Posts: 5392 From: Tacoma, WA, USA Registered: Mar 2002
How are Mexicans getting into the US? Flying over? Or walking over with nobody noticing?
Except for one difference: most of the Iraq / Syria border is in the desert or semi-desert with nobody patrolling it for tens (if not hundreds) of miles.
Yeah, once on the inside they may need a bit of help. I'm certain there's a few Iraqis here and there who are willing to help the insurgency.
On the other hand, the vast majority probably want to live in peace.
Common sense suggests that the insurgents probably aren't locals. Why else would they kill their own people by the dozens? It is the goal of those people to show that the US has only worsened the situation in Iraq.
Common sense says that if the insurgents are outsiders and locals want peace that as soon as they saw these strangers they would report them before they could do any damage.
It also says that walking in with heavy weaponry isn't likely when you have to cross hundreds of miles of barren desert in the open. Maybe they are just driving in... I have no idea what sort of checkpoints are now setup on the borders if any. Seems like we are attempting to just control inside the cities.
IRA killed an aweful lot of their own people also... just a matter of deciding that if you aren't with them your against them. I do agree with you last sentence I quoted.
IP: Logged
01:42 PM
fierobear Member
Posts: 27116 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
Common sense says that if the insurgents are outsiders and locals want peace that as soon as they saw these strangers they would report them before they could do any damage.
Because the insurgents are killing Iraqi police and any citizens who cooperate with the U.S.
. So where is my lowered gas prices?
