[L'enfanTerrible]

It seems to me that the destruction and looting of the cities of Iraq is the behaviour of people who care little for law and order. Perhaps all the people kissing pictures of Bush and destroying statues of Saddam are only doing so because they believe now that wonderful America has come, they will all get their Levi's and Gameboys too. In other parts of the world, it's not uncommon for people to pay large amounts for anything American. Maybe this "celebration" and I use the term very lightly has little to do with freedom from oppression and more to do with the illusion that their country will benefit greatly from American intervention.

Thats my armchair-political-scientist moment for the night.

[moki]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
. Maybe this "celebration" and I use the term very lightly has little to do with freedom from oppression and more to do with the illusion that their country will benefit greatly from American intervention.

Or perhaps it isn't an illusion. See you in 5 years, when it will be clear.

if anything, though, I can't imagine that Iraq could ever be worse off than it has been for the past decade or so. Can you?

[L'enfanTerrible]

Originally posted by moki:
Or perhaps it isn't an illusion. See you in 5 years, when it will be clear.

if anything, though, I can't imagine that Iraq could ever be worse off than it has been for the past decade or so. Can you?

I don't know what to believe. I am a really trusting person, but I have a really hard time believing politicians these days, and it's even harder to sift through the sh!te we call the media.

[Nicko]

I have seen several reports now saying that most of these looters do not represent the majority of the population, rather they are more like hooligans taking the opportunity to steal while they can.

If they don't start getting food/water/electricity very soon then those parades are going to turn into nasty riots.

[pooka]

Originally posted by Nicko:
I have seen several reports now saying that most of these looters do not represent the majority of the population, rather they are more like hooligans taking the opportunity to steal while they can.

So it's kinda like Oakland?

[idjeff]

Looting huh? Anyone remember when Saddam released a majority of Iraq's criminals from prison a few months ago. I wonder what they're doing now.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Civilian looting quite often accompanies the upset of large cities during wars.

It's hardly anything new.

The setup seems pretty obvious- people in an occupied urban center, oppressed, for years etc. Along come bombs falling, opening up previously fortified buildings full of loot like big pi�atas�

In the ensuing chaos, looting is inevitable, virtually guaranteed.

In this case, who can blame anyone? In fact, more power to �em, hope people grab whatever they can get their hands on. After 30+ years under the thumb of an oppressive tyrant a$$hole like Saddam that�s the least they deserve, a few days of free-for-all.

[voodoo]

Ahem, 23 years plus a couple of months. (since 1979)

carry on.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

He and the Baath party have held power since 1968.

By all accounts, Saddam was always the true leader, the president before him little more than a figurehead.

[Zimphire]

Yes, that is it. IN NO WAY could it just be that they are glad we got rid of the dictator.

[L'enfanTerrible]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yes, that is it. IN NO WAY could it just be that they are glad we got rid of the dictator.

I didn't say it isn't because of that too, it just seems so backwards that the people of Iraq, who suffered so much because of the US (sanctions, bombings etc) would be rejoicing because of some new American "hero" military machine.. If I was Iraqi, I'd be calling for an investigation into America's connections with Saddam and terrorism.. I'd hardly be kissing a picture of Bush.. It's my theory that there is a mania occurring over there, because the tides have turned so much.. Imagine if a city like Chicago essentially stopped functioning. It would be pretty strange.. I'm saying that we shouldn't attribute the "celebration" as well as the lootings and destruction of the old regime to some glorious American military campaign as purported on American media.

[Zimphire]

Well you aren't the Iraqi people, and they are indeed doing these things.

[mixin visuals]

if you plan on looting you better read these looting tips

[mikerally]

Yes, that is it. IN NO WAY could it just be that they are glad we got rid of the dictator.

Since where did anyone in this thread state that isn't the case?

Why do you keep forming these preconceptions about what people in these forums are saying? Where are you getting them from?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by mikerally:
Since where did anyone in this thread state that isn't the case?

Why do you keep forming these preconceptions about what people in these forums are saying? Where are you getting them from?

I was making such comment because just about every other reason was given other than the obvious one. It is like almost people just don't WANT that to be true for some reason. Bizarre huh?

BTW I never said anyone in this thread stated that wasn't the case, and i was not forming any preconceptions about people. But I find it humorous, after the fact, that you are claiming that *I* was doing this in this same post you were doing it to me. You obviously had no idea why I posted this, but formed a preconception as to why, and wrote a rant about it.

Fun for the whole family.

[joelcpa]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
It is like almost people just don't WANT that to be true for some reason. Bizarre huh?

Of course they don't want it to be true that the Iraqi people are actually happy about their first taste of freedom in many years, that would cause the whole anti-war group to have to admit they were WRONG.

[joelcpa]

Originally posted by mikerally:
Since where did anyone in this thread state that isn't the case?

duh

LT's intentions and views are pretty obvious to anyone with the smallest amount of sense by the reference to "the myth of the American Dream". Obviously, he wasn't going to be offering congratulations to the coalition for the tremendous victory they won for the people of Iraq.

[avalon hill]

Originally posted by joelcpa:
Of course they don't want it to be true that the Iraqi people are actually happy about their first taste of freedom in many years, that would cause the whole anti-war group to have to admit they were WRONG.

For the anti-war group to admit to any wrong would require an acknowledgement of the end as justification of the means. Those who object to diplomacy through high velocity ordinance cite the opposite as le raison d'etre.

Many Iraqi's will celebrate the end of the regime. I recall a similar scene of rejoicing following Saddam's pardon of prisoners a few months ago. That chaotic scene was as much a tribute to their benefactor as the current jubilation is a show of gratitude to those who find it acceptable to drop four 900 kilogram bombs onto a residential neighborhood on word from some two-bit hood who claimed to have seen Saddam in the vicinity.

Freedom from oppression, freedom from American bombs. Tastes to savour in equal measure!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by joelcpa:
Of course they don't want it to be true that the Iraqi people are actually happy about their first taste of freedom in many years, that would cause the whole anti-war group to have to admit they were WRONG.

I"d prefer to be wrong.
er...wait, no I'd never prefer that war was the answer to anything, so strike that.
What I mean is, I'd prefer to be wrong concerning the future of the region. I'd prefer my gut feeling that bad things are coming in terms of global repercussions of this action were wrong. I'd prefer to think that my gut feeling that Syria is next and the overall plan is to domesticate the region is wrong.
I'd prefer to be wrong and to think that Iraqis are and will be uniformly grateful to the point of swearing undying fealty to the United States.
I'd prefer to be wrong and think that Iraqis will not resent american and british companies dividing up the economic spoils for liberating them.
I'd like to be wrong when I think we will spread ourselves too thin militarily when we threaten multiple enemies, and forget to protect ourselves at home.

I'd like to be wrong. However, I'd also like to be a millionaire. Simply wishing something to be true does not make it so.

You think you are right, and your lips to God's ears, I hope you are. But I am not able to put ideological blinders on and ignore historical, global, and political realities like you. I am cursed to see the world as it really is, instead of how I wish it to be.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I"d prefer to be wrong.....

Good thing. Because you most certainly are.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Good thing. Because you most certainly are.

let's see in around next election. If we have NOT invaded Syria, or some other country in the region, and if the arab world does a 180 degree turn and worships us, and if the UN and the rest of the world is just copacetic with us by then, Then you would be right and I would be wrong.

we'll just see, though, unfortunately.

[davesimondotcom]

The American Dream� is not a myth.

[joelcpa]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
let's see in around next election. If we have NOT invaded Syria, or some other country in the region, and if the arab world does a 180 degree turn and worships us, and if the UN and the rest of the world is just copacetic with us by then, Then you would be right and I would be wrong.

we'll just see, though, unfortunately.

Perhaps an invasion of another country will be necessary (to get rid of terrorist organizations, leaders) but I doubt it will happen before the next election.

As far as the arab world doing a 180, it won't happen anyways. Besides, who cares? We aren't out to win popularity contests, particularly in that region of the world. We are trying to reduce terrorism and terroristic states. If we can facilitate new democratic states in the region, so much the better.

As far as the UN is concerned, who cares?? I'll take the 30+ nation coalition we have right now. See above RE: popularity contests. The UN is not relevant and has not been for some time!

[joelcpa]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
The American Dream� is not a myth.

OF COURSE THE AMERICAN DREAM IS A MYTH....

...to those that aren't out achieving it!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
let's see in around next election. If we have NOT invaded Syria, or some other country in the region,

LOL No one is saying we wont invade others Lerk.

and if the arab world does a 180 degree turn and worships us,

NO one wants them to worship us either.

and if the UN and the rest of the world is just copacetic with us by then, Then you would be right and I would be wrong.

we'll just see, though, unfortunately.

Yes, because the UN and the rest of the world was copatcetic with us BEFORE this. Hell in he past 40 years.

You've allready been wrong too many times in this war Lerk. I would stop making predictions, or get a better crystal ball.

[deedar]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
The American Dream� is not a myth.

It is for a great many Americans...

[Logic]

Originally posted by joelcpa:

As far as the arab world doing a 180, it won't happen anyways. Besides, who cares? We aren't out to win popularity contests, particularly in that region of the world. We are trying to reduce terrorism and terroristic states. If we can facilitate new democratic states in the region, so much the better.

As far as the UN is concerned, who cares?? I'll take the 30+ nation coalition we have right now. See above RE: popularity contests. The UN is not relevant and has not been for some time!

So you really think that invading countries, installing puppetregimes, continue to be inconsistant and so forth is the way to reduce terrorism?

The coalition has countries like Palau, Micronesia and Iceland in it. Not exactly the most powerful and economically strongest allies you could find. What's your point?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:
The coalition has countries like Palau, Micronesia and Iceland in it. Not exactly the most powerful and economically strongest allies you could find. What's your point?

Well, the coalition seemed to be powerful and economically strong enough to do the job in three weeks. Just think how much faster it would have gone if we had mighty Belgium on our side!

[joelcpa]

Originally posted by Logic:
So you really think that invading countries, installing puppetregimes, continue to be inconsistant and so forth is the way to reduce terrorism?

No, but since that is not what I said nor what the US has done, your question isn't relevant to our discussion.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by joelcpa:
No, but since that is not what I said nor what the US has done, your question isn't relevant to our discussion.

*knocks on forehead* hello?
I think even Simey will chime in here that you're in a supreme state of denial.

you can argue whether it was RIGHT to invade, but invade we have.
You can also pretend we haven't installed puppet regimes, but Iran would beg to differ, as they still remember the Shah, and there is Marcos, Noriega, etc, etc.

Our dealing with just one issue: the palestinian state, varies from administration to administration ,so its hardly consistent.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
[Bthere is Marcos, Noriega, etc, etc.[/B]

An interesting question. The US helped bring down Marcos and directly brought down Noriega. I'm trying to remember if anyone raised the question of past dealings as a reason why it was wrong to bring them down.

[Logic]

Originally posted by joelcpa:
No, but since that is not what I said nor what the US has done, your question isn't relevant to our discussion.

Excuse me?
1. You invaded Iraq.
2. You are installing the government that will control Iraq until the elections.
3. You are not putting any pressure on Israel to stop violating the Geneva convention or follow UNSC resolutions. At the same time you complain when the Iraqis break the Geneva convention as well as breaking them yourself.That is being inconsistant.

So tell me what statement above is untrue? And in what way is it irrelevant because you stated this:

We are trying to reduce terrorism and terroristic states. If we can facilitate new democratic states in the region, so much the better.

As far as the UN is concerned, who cares?? I'll take the 30+ nation coalition we have right now.

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Well, the coalition seemed to be powerful and economically strong enough to do the job in three weeks. Just think how much faster it would have gone if we had mighty Belgium on our side!

So if you are economically and militarily stronger than the country under your heel, you are right? Or just because you were able to do this so fast you will reduce terrorism? I ask again, what is your point?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:
So if you are economically and militarily stronger than the country under your heel, you are right? Or just because you were able to do this so fast you will reduce terrorism? I ask again, what is your point?

The point is humor, Logic. Calm down.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by Logic:
So if you are economically and militarily stronger than the country under your heel, you are right? Or just because you were able to do this so fast you will reduce terrorism? I ask again, what is your point?

Hehe I think he was joking
Although I would add that if Canada had participated and sent in the Mounties, this whole thing would have been over in a week!

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The point is humor, Logic. Calm down.

::calming down::

OK, of course I got that. But the first sentence sounded awfully much like some here have argued. That was why I called you on it.

[Nicko]

The ironic thing ofcourse is that it will take atleast 5 years to see if the american adventure actually improves the situation or makes it worse. By that time ofcourse the current US admins in office calling the shots won't be there any more and will thereby avoid having to answer for any future critisism of what is happening now.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Nicko:
The ironic thing ofcourse is that it will take atleast 5 years to see if the american adventure actually improves the situation or makes it worse. By that time ofcourse all the guys in office calling the shots won't be there any more thereby avoiding having to answer for any future critisism of what is happening now.

5 years? You seem to be assuming something about November, 2004 that may be a little premature. Do you have a crystal ball, or something? Or is this a faith thing?

But your wider point is legitimate and anyway, I think 5 years is really going to be too soon to judge. Russia (a much more advanced country) is still transitioning to democracy 13 years after the fall of Communism. We'd be pretty naive to think the process will be faster in Iraq.

The only way to avoid the problem of leaders who can't be judged by their handiwork is not to hold elections. Then you can keep the same president for 30 years just like Iraq did. The problem is that without elections, you can't hold the leader accountable for their handiwork. There is no real solution to that except to remember that you elect a president for what they promise to do more than for what they have done.

[Nicko]

Well 5 years was just a number I made up
But I really don't think we can compare Iraq to Russia, they didn't have a complete collapse of government and civil services. Russia is also riddled with crime and corruption.

The US can't afford leave the Iraqis to their own devices, they must now take responsibility for what they have done. I think it would be perfectly possible to have free elections in 5 years. If they don't, it will just further fuel the suspicions that the US just wanted control over oil and fundamentalism will just increase. Then there is the problem of the Iraqis freely voting for a political part that the US wouldn't like.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Well 5 years was just a number I made up
But I really don't think we can compare Iraq to Russia, they didn't have a complete collapse of government and civil services. The US can't afford leave the Iraqis to their own devices, they must now take responsibility for what they have done. I think it would be perfectly possible to have free elections in 5 years.

I didn't say they can't have elections in 5 years. It's just that building a democracy is a bit more involved than elections. It's also something that you can really only judge after there has been more than one election. The acid test is if you can have a peaceful transition of power between political rivals after the government loses an election. Otherwise you get "one man, one vote, one time" which isn't democracy.

So we really won't know for a while about democracy. On the other hand, it should be fairly obvious in two or three years whether things are at least better than under Hussein.

[joelcpa]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
*knocks on forehead* hello?
I think even Simey will chime in here that you're in a supreme state of denial.

you can argue whether it was RIGHT to invade, but invade we have.
You can also pretend we haven't installed puppet regimes, but Iran would beg to differ, as they still remember the Shah, and there is Marcos, Noriega, etc, etc.

Our dealing with just one issue: the palestinian state, varies from administration to administration ,so its hardly consistent.

Let me slow down a little for you then before you hurt yourself.

I never claimed that those things did not happen in our 200+ year history.

We were discussing the current administration's actions in Iraq. You pointed out 3 criteria that would have to be met by the next election in order for you to determine if you were right or wrong about your position on the Iraqi invasion. I responded claiming that the first was unlikely and the other two irrelevant.

Logic responded to my post by implying that the coalition's method of reducing terrorism was for us to invade, install puppet regimes, and be inconsistent. Clearly, those 3 things have not occurred in regards to the invasion of Iraq by THIS administration and the coalition. Yes, they may have occurred at some point in our history, but our discussion was about the Iraqi invasion, not revisiting 200+ years of American history.

[joelcpa]

Originally posted by Logic:
Excuse me?
1. You invaded Iraq.
2. You are installing the government that will control Iraq until the elections.
3. You are not putting any pressure on Israel to stop violating the Geneva convention or follow UNSC resolutions. At the same time you complain when the Iraqis break the Geneva convention as well as breaking them yourself.That is being inconsistant.

So tell me what statement above is untrue? And in what way is it irrelevant because you stated this:

#2 has not happened. The administration has said repeatedly that the interim government will be made up of the people of Iraq, so it will hardly be a puppet regime.

#3 What does that have to do with stopping terrorism? We didn't invade Iraq because they broke the Geneva convention.

[Nicko]

Originally posted by joelcpa:
#2 has not happened. The administration has said repeatedly that the interim government will be made up of the people of Iraq, so it will hardly be a puppet regime.

#3 What does that have to do with stopping terrorism? We didn't invade Iraq because they broke the Geneva convention.

Ask any middle east expert and they will tell you that the root cause for most terrorism stems from the Israel/Palestine occupation/conflict/whateveryouwant to call it. Until there is some kind of resolution to that, there will be terrorism. No matter how many countries the US invades, if they don't deal with that core issue it won't make a difference.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Nicko:
Ask any expert on middle east issues and they will tell you that the root cause for most terrorism stems from the Israel/Palestine occupation/conflict/whateveryouwant to call it. Until there is some kind of resolution to that, there will be terrorism. No matter how many countries the US invades, if they don't deal with that core issue it won't make a difference.

That is one root cause. It isn't the only root cause. The region-wide lack of representative government, grotesque economic concentration in the hands of unelected and unaccountable elites, the lack of any meaningful industry beyond oil, and the almost totally unfree media also play their role. Tacking those one-by-one will help reduce extremeism and that in turn will probably help the Arab-Israeli dispute.

[Logic]

Originally posted by joelcpa:
#2 has not happened. The administration has said repeatedly that the interim government will be made up of the people of Iraq, so it will hardly be a puppet regime.

#3 What does that have to do with stopping terrorism? We didn't invade Iraq because they broke the Geneva convention.

#2 has not happened but is in the making. The coalition is setting up an interim regime that will supposedly be lead by a former general of the US military and/or Ahmed Chalabi who is a good friend of Cheney. It will not be elected by the Iraqi people. That is what most would call a puppetregime.

#3 The inconsistancy. No you invaded Iraq for a number of reasons because none of them would be strong enough by themselve. But while a country is breaking international laws, conventions like the Geneva one and violating UNSC resolutions you do nothing as long as they are pro-west. Inconsistancy. And don't come here and argue that the resolutions aren't binding, not even the resolution that gave Israelis the land is binding.

So what is your next move?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by joelcpa:
#2 has not happened. The administration has said repeatedly that the interim government will be made up of the people of Iraq, so it will hardly be a puppet regime.

#3 What does that have to do with stopping terrorism? We didn't invade Iraq because they broke the Geneva convention.

#2, you've obviously not been listening to the same reports I have that the interim govt will be made up in part of hand-picked ex-patriots from the US (in other words appointed by the US), one part leaders who assisted (or collaborated) with the US invasion, and then a third part chosen by the Iraqi people.
That automatically stacks the deck in the US favor.

That might not be TECHNICALLY a puppet government, but it is a defacto puppet government.

and to your post further up, you need to reread the previous post. I posted saying I hoped I was wrong, and listed a litany of things I hoped I was wrong about. To which someone posted I WAS wrong unequivocably about everything I'd stated.


other than that, point taken about misunderstanding your previous post.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:
#2 has not happened but is in the making. The coalition is setting up an interim regime that will supposedly be lead by a former general of the US military and/or Ahmed Chalabi who is a good friend of Cheney. It will not be elected by the Iraqi people. That is what most would call a puppetregime.

Where did you get the part about Chalibi being a friend of Cheney? Things aren't looking very good for him to be just anointed as interim leader (whichis what he wants). There has been some serious talk here in Washington about what a bad idea it would be to appoint such an obviously westernized exile rather than finding someone from inside Iraq.

In fact, it has got to the point where the Wall Street Journal has begun criticizing the Bush Administration for allegedly smearing Chalibi. Link

[thunderous_funker]

Chalabi is already in the country. He was flown in during the last 48 hours.

Some reports say he has a force of around 700 soldiers with him. Some have reported that they are mostly made up of Iranian Shi'ites because no one else was willing.

Chalabi is the Pentagon's man (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Perle) but is strongly disliked by the State Dept.

Looks like the same two factions in the Bush administration will be battling this one out if it hasn't already been decided.

Chalabi also fled Jordan when he was convicted to 22 years hard labor on 31 counts of embezzlement, theft, misuse of depositor funds and speculation with the Jordanian dinar in a bank scandal back in 1992.

Sounds like a Bush kinda guy.

[joelcpa]

Originally posted by Logic:
#2 has not happened but is in the making. The coalition is setting up an interim regime that will supposedly be lead by a former general of the US military and/or Ahmed Chalabi who is a good friend of Cheney. It will not be elected by the Iraqi people. That is what most would call a puppetregime.

#3 The inconsistancy. No you invaded Iraq for a number of reasons because none of them would be strong enough by themselve. But while a country is breaking international laws, conventions like the Geneva one and violating UNSC resolutions you do nothing as long as they are pro-west. Inconsistancy. And don't come here and argue that the resolutions aren't binding, not even the resolution that gave Israelis the land is binding.

So what is your next move?

Fine, so we are inconsistent in applying the Geneva convention. I'm still not sure how that causes terrorism, but we are inconsistent nonetheless.

No, a puppet regime is when a country's government is not controlled by its own people, but by another country. The US has indicated they will do everything they can to get a government comprised of Iraqi people as quickly as possible. Obviously, that won't happen by Monday, but the US has not given any indication they want to stay in Iraq any longer than necessary. And as you state, it hasn't happened yet, so we don't know how it will turn out.

[villalobos]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
The American Dream� is not a myth.

Ever been downtown Detroit?

villa