Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Iraqis have new lives, new hopes now that Saddam is gone

Iraqis have new lives, new hopes now that Saddam is gone
Thread Tools
Uday's Carcass
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Frozen storage at Area 51, wrapped in pigskin. My damned soul is never getting out of the Great Satan.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2003, 09:30 AM
 
The New York Times writes an article extolling the positive side of life and new hope in Iraq.
One of my favourite lines:
Before the war, young women were afraid to visit this restaurant for another reason. It was a favorite of Uday Hussein, the president's notorious son, who was known to pick up attractive women he encountered and take them back to his palace.


Lots of you like to piss on America for what it has done, but tens of millions of people are free now, and they have a chance at a democratic future, one free from state brutality, oppression, torture, and rape.

Linfidels harken! 'The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.'
     
MacGorilla
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2003, 09:33 AM
 
Yes! The Iraqis gain freedoms while we lose ours to Ashcroft and company.
Power Macintosh Dual G4
SGI Indigo2 6.5.21f
     
icruise
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Illinois
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2003, 09:43 AM
 
Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
The New York Times writes an article extolling the positive side of life and new hope in Iraq.


Lots of you like to piss on America for what it has done, but tens of millions of people are free now, and they have a chance at a democratic future, one free from state brutality, oppression, torture, and rape. [/B]
What you don't seem to realize is that most of us probably agree that Iraq is better off without Saddam. What we don't agree with is the idea that this end justifies the means or that that the "liberation" of the people of Iraq was the true motive for the war.
     
Uday's Carcass  (op)
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Frozen storage at Area 51, wrapped in pigskin. My damned soul is never getting out of the Great Satan.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2003, 10:35 AM
 
Originally posted by MacGorilla:
Yes! The Iraqis gain freedoms while we lose ours to Ashcroft and company.
I don't care for Ashcroft either.

Linfidels harken! 'The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.'
     
Uday's Carcass  (op)
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Frozen storage at Area 51, wrapped in pigskin. My damned soul is never getting out of the Great Satan.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2003, 10:37 AM
 
Originally posted by Icruise:
the "liberation" of the people of Iraq was the true motive for the war.
I'll tell you straight up that it wasn't the motive. I've no problem agreeing to that. However, the article demonstrates two serious points: (1) things in Iraq are better than the media presents it, and (2) many Iraqis, especially ones old enough to have felt the murder, brutality, torture, and rape of Saddam's regime, feel liberated and are clinging to their new freedoms and new opportunities at life.

Linfidels harken! 'The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.'
     
eklipse
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2003, 10:41 AM
 
Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
Lots of you like to piss on America for what it has done,...
Not just 'what' it has done, but 'how' and 'why' it was done too.
...but tens of millions of people are free now,...
Define 'free'.
...and they have a chance at a democratic future,...
When?
....one free from state brutality, oppression, torture, and rape.
....and under subservience to America no doubt.
     
Uday's Carcass  (op)
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Frozen storage at Area 51, wrapped in pigskin. My damned soul is never getting out of the Great Satan.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2003, 10:59 AM
 
Originally posted by eklipse:
Not just 'what' it has done, but 'how' and 'why' it was done too.
I've addressed that. It was a violent overthrow of a dictatorial, brutal regime based on US foreign policy and security concerns.
Define 'free'.
Freedom from tyranny, oppression, institutional and government-sanctioned rape, torture, and murder. Freedom to travel, visit loved ones in other countries, and freedom from the brain-washing and ignorance that Saddam's educational system instilled.
When?
When an Iraqi military and civilian (police, counterterrorist) infrastructure is deemed strong enough to fend for itself. Abandoning them now would doom Iraqis to the horrors of another Saddam-style regime.
....and under subservience to America no doubt.
riiiight, just like all the countries America liberated in the past are under American subservience: France, Germany, Japan, and South Korea. You are indeed swimming in the Feces of Intellectual Sewage.

Linfidels harken! 'The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.'
     
eklipse
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2003, 11:49 AM
 
Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
Freedom from tyranny, oppression, institutional and government-sanctioned rape, torture, and murder. Freedom to travel, visit loved ones in other countries, and freedom from the brain-washing and ignorance that Saddam's educational system instilled.
What about freedom to select their own governing officials?, what about freedom to decide which countries/firms get the contracts to rebuild key infrastructure and, above all else, what about freedom from occupation?

The way I see it, 'free' and 'occupied' are mutually exclusive terms.
When an Iraqi military and civilian (police, counterterrorist) infrastructure is deemed strong enough to fend for itself. Abandoning them now would doom Iraqis to the horrors of another Saddam-style regime.
And what progress is being made on that front? How much closer is America to handing over power to a legitimate Iraqi government? Why the reluctance to hand over any governing power to a multi-national authority?
riiiight, just like all the countries America liberated in the past are under American subservience: France, Germany, Japan, and South Korea. You are indeed swimming in the Feces of Intellectual Sewage.
I can only go by what I see and hear - right now, Iraq has an American installed proxy government who ultimately answers to Washington or it's representative. Until such time that Iraq has a democratically elected government, representative of Iraqi interests above all else - it will continue to be subservient to America and American interests, this is not a good platform on which to create stability.
     
Spliffdaddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: South of the Mason-Dixon line
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2003, 12:00 PM
 
maybe this is news to a lot of people...

The USA doesn't want Iraq and doesn't need Iraq.

When we feel the need to expand our country - we'll annex Canada and/or Mexico.
     
Uday's Carcass  (op)
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Frozen storage at Area 51, wrapped in pigskin. My damned soul is never getting out of the Great Satan.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2003, 12:13 PM
 
Originally posted by eklipse:
What about freedom to select their own governing officials?, what about freedom to decide which countries/firms get the contracts to rebuild key infrastructure and, above all else, what about freedom from occupation?
The occupation is necessary to ensure Iraq's safety and security from both internal and external enemies of democracy and freedom. You know that, yet you lambaste it incessantly. You know that having no strong military presence would destroy a new Iraq before it even begins. Stop being so intellectually dishonest with yourself.
And what progress is being made on that front? How much closer is America to handing over power to a legitimate Iraqi government? Why the reluctance to hand over any governing power to a multi-national authority?
I don't farking know. It'll happen when it happens. Thousands of Iraqi police and soldiers are being trained right now. There are plans for major US troop drawndowns and pullouts next year. As for the multinational authority: Iraq needs unity and decisiveness from the governing authority and the military forces. A multinational role would introduce bickering, European feudalism, and corrupting outside influences (Iran, Syria, and France) that would undermine American security and policy efforts.
I can only go by what I see and hear - right now, Iraq has an American installed proxy government who ultimately answers to Washington or it's representative. Until such time that Iraq has a democratically elected government, representative of Iraqi interests above all else - it will continue to be subservient to America and American interests, this is not a good platform on which to create stability.
you are wrong. It is an excellent platform on which to create stability. You have a stable government backed by American military might, a populace that is enjoying newfound freedoms of thought, expression, movement, economics, and education, and solid plans for rebuilding infrastructure, slowly turning over security and police roles to Iraqis, and preparing the country for elections at some point in the future.

[edit: spellling.]
( Last edited by Uday's Carcass; Oct 26, 2003 at 01:43 PM. )

Linfidels harken! 'The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.'
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2003, 12:21 PM
 
On this I tend to agree with the administration's supporters, and it's why I agreed in principle with the idea of an overthrow. My beef is with the dishonesty - and the diplomatic and strategic bungling - that has accompanied the effort.
     
Uday's Carcass  (op)
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Frozen storage at Area 51, wrapped in pigskin. My damned soul is never getting out of the Great Satan.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2003, 12:40 PM
 
Originally posted by zigzag:
My beef is with the dishonesty - and the diplomatic and strategic bungling - that has accompanied the effort.
mine too. Although I don't see a 'strategic bungling' or a diplomatic one, I'm not fond of the hype (and the ever-more-apparent dishonesty of the CIA) that surround the action.

But Iraqis deserve a chance at a future, and the final responsibility for success or failure rests with the United States. Not France, not Germany, not the United Nations.

Linfidels harken! 'The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.'
     
MacGorilla
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2003, 12:47 PM
 
Originally posted by zigzag:
On this I tend to agree with the administration's supporters, and it's why I agreed in principle with the idea of an overthrow. My beef is with the dishonesty - and the diplomatic and strategic bungling - that has accompanied the effort.
I agreed in general principle for the need to do something about Saddam but I never bought the idea he was a threat to us or the world.

The dishonesty stinks, so does the arrogance and bungling over the situation.
Power Macintosh Dual G4
SGI Indigo2 6.5.21f
     
christ
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Gosport
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2003, 12:53 PM
 
Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
maybe this is news to a lot of people...

The USA doesn't want Iraq and doesn't need Iraq...
The facts seem to indicate that your President doesn't agree with you on this.
Chris. T.

"... in 6 months if WMD are found, I hope all clear-thinking people who opposed the war will say "You're right, we were wrong -- good job". Similarly, if after 6 months no WMD are found, people who supported the war should say the same thing -- and move to impeach Mr. Bush." - moki, 04/16/03
     
RooneyX
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2003, 12:56 PM
 
Things in Iraq are better than what the media presents. Corporate media works with big government to defraud the people of their taxes. Give us 80 billion so we can skim from it!

But the media did the same thing while Sadman Inssein was in power. The people lived better than what was presented on TV. There were a lot fo lies said on TV about Shi'ites living like sheep in the north and south and all that crap (the no fly zones were to protect the oil pipelines and prevent smuggling).

Just think this way, fvck Bush, fvck Saddam, fvck Mullah Rasgullah, fvck Teresa and the Pope, fvck Jesus and Muhammed, fvkck Bing Lading, fvck John Travolta, fvck L. Ron Hubbard, fvck the Queen, fvck Diana and Dodi, fvkc Charlie's big ears, fvck Lewinsky...twice, fvck Rupert Murdoch, fvck John Ashcroft, fvck Mahatir,fvck em all, fvck em in the ear.
     
Uday's Carcass  (op)
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Frozen storage at Area 51, wrapped in pigskin. My damned soul is never getting out of the Great Satan.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2003, 01:05 PM
 
Originally posted by christ:
The facts seem to indicate that your President doesn't agree with you on this.
the facts indicate that you're impatient, choose to see and hear only what you want, then puke it back up like they're your own pathetic thoughts. Sad part is, you're happy to eat your own vomit and spew it back out again and again, because your senses are blind to the truth and light, and your liberal infidel brain stem is fooled into perceiving vomit as gourmet food.


Linfidels harken! 'The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.'
     
eklipse
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2003, 01:09 PM
 
Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
The occupation is necessary to ensure Iraq's safety and security from both internal and external enemies of democracy and freedom. You know that, yet you lamblast it incessantly. You know that having no strong military presence would destroy a new Iraq before it even begins. Stop being so intellectually dishonest with yourself.
If it were American military might backing up a legitimate Iraqi government I might be more supportive.
I don't farking know. It'll happen when it happens. Thousands of Iraqi police and soldiers are being trained right now. There are plans for major US troop drawndowns and pullouts next year. As for the multinational authority: Iraq needs unity and decisiveness from the governing authority and the military forces. A multinational role would introduce bickering, European feudalism, and corrupting outside influences (Iran, Syria, and France) that would undermine American security and policy efforts.
This is asking a lot of people to put a lot of faith in America and it's good intentions - faith that I'm not entirely sure is warranted.
you are wrong. It is an excellent platform on which to create stability. You have a stable government backed by American military might, a populace that is enjoying newfound freedoms of thought, expression, movement, economics, and education, and solid plans for rebuilding infrastructure, slowly turning over security and police roles to Iraqis, and preparing the country for elections at some point in the future.
The key point here is that the 'government' is only stable because of American military might - this is a false stability. Again, this freedom you speak of has yet to materialize - I'm not saying it won't, but it hasn't yet.


P.S. lamblast?
     
zigzag
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2003, 01:14 PM
 
Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
mine too. Although I don't see a 'strategic bungling' or a diplomatic one, I'm not fond of the hype (and the ever-more-apparent dishonesty of the CIA) that surround the action.
The CIA is being scapegoated. A variety of intelligence was available, the administration just cherry-picked and exaggerated the stuff they liked. No passing the buck on that one.

But that's for another thread. I've said all along that if the Iraq action succeeds, the public will forget the rest, which is what the administration and all politicians count on.
     
Uday's Carcass  (op)
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Frozen storage at Area 51, wrapped in pigskin. My damned soul is never getting out of the Great Satan.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2003, 01:41 PM
 
Originally posted by eklipse:
If it were American military might backing up a legitimate Iraqi government I might be more supportive.
And Saddam's government was any more legitimate? Oh yeah, he did get 100% of the vote last election. Iraqis will choose their government in due course.
The key point here is that the 'government' is only stable because of American military might - this is a false stability.
Stability is stability. It keeps the destabilisers in check until such a time when Iraq is strong and fit enough to govern all of its security affairs. That day is coming.
Again, this freedom you speak of has yet to materialize - I'm not saying it won't, but it hasn't yet.
You're restricting the definition of freedom to mean only voting in free and fair elections. That day will come. Right now, this very second, Iraqis are enjoying many of the same day-to-day freedoms we take for granted--movement, travel, capitalism, education, and freedom from tyranny, government-sponsored murder and rape. I'd say that is a big part of freedom, yet you write it off. I bet Iraqis would disagree.

Linfidels harken! 'The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.'
     
RooneyX
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2003, 02:17 PM
 
Originally posted by zigzag:
The CIA is being scapegoated. A variety of intelligence was available, the administration just cherry-picked and exaggerated the stuff they liked. No passing the buck on that one.

Democracy is amazing isn't it? Forget Bush and Cheney, they have no stake in this affair. Pass the buck to unelected bureaucrats who can't get recalled by the public.
     
eklipse
Professional Poster
Join Date: May 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2003, 04:44 PM
 
Originally posted by Uday's Carcass:
And Saddam's government was any more legitimate? Oh yeah, he did get 100% of the vote last election. Iraqis will choose their government in due course.
Well if America's intervention can yield nothing more legitimate than Saddam's government that would be a major problem, wouldn't it?

Let's hope Iraqis do get to choose their own government (and type of government) - soon.
Stability is stability. It keeps the destabilisers in check until such a time when Iraq is strong and fit enough to govern all of its security affairs. That day is coming.
And this is why American intervention is a bad idea - you have removed the Iraqis right to self-determination and replaced it with American-determination™.

By manipulating the balance of power in this way, the US will inevitably create dissent, mistrust and, you've guessed it, instability.
You're restricting the definition of freedom to mean only voting in free and fair elections. That day will come. Right now, this very second, Iraqis are enjoying many of the same day-to-day freedoms we take for granted--movement, travel, capitalism, education, and freedom from tyranny, government-sponsored murder and rape. I'd say that is a big part of freedom, yet you write it off. I bet Iraqis would disagree.
Well that's a shallow argument - I could just as easily say you are likewise restricting your definition of freedom.

As for your other points: Movement and travel? How many of these restrictions were the result of sanctions?; Capitalism? That's not for you to judge - Iraqis will/should make up their own minds on whether capitalism is a good or bad thing for them; Education? Iraq had a pretty good education system prior to sanctions being imposed; Freedom from tyranny? Well that is heavily dependent on perspective and your definition of 'tyranny'; Murder and rape? They are still around, (perhaps more so) even if they are no longer 'state-sponsored'.
     
spacefreak
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NJ, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2003, 06:47 PM
 
Originally posted by zigzag:
The CIA is being scapegoated. A variety of intelligence was available, the administration just cherry-picked and exaggerated the stuff they liked. No passing the buck on that one.
What about the intelligence of other nations' agencies? And Clinton's 1998 CIA analysis...they all concluded the same thing - Saddam had WMD.

Furthermore, Kay has only visited 10 of an estimated 130 weapons depots. There is still much to sift through before we can claim massive failures.

You're right...it's best for another thread.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:19 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,