Refusing to go to War (edit)

So do you think family’s drop the bombs during the school run then!

Does Abu Musab al-Zarqawi ring any bells. He’s name comes to mind simply because of the high profile his actions have caused, but, he isn’t responsible for all bombs and murders. These people are cordinated, they plan attacks. I've even heard of terrorists groups trading hostages!!

Why can’t you accept that terrorists and insurgent groups are roaming in Iraq? The only people who don’t really want the US there are those who gain from terrorist actions, such as those loyal to Saddam (and they most definitely NOT your average Iraqi) or the terrorists themselves.

Remember, the majority of the loyalty towards Saddam in past years was through fear and terror. Those that rebelled were 'dealt with', as past actions has shown.
 
Actually that isn't quite accurate either. There are a lot of everyday Iraqis who don't want the US there as well. Some do feel that they are ready to govern themselves without our intervention.*

Whether that's realistic or not is another issue. But reducing it to "only the terrorists want us out" is as bad as stating it as "ever Iraqi wants us out." Hence this is why it's important to read local Iraqi headlines as much as US ones.

And take in multiple media sources. I suggest everyone try to track down "Voices from Iraq" which was a documentary sponsored by the US government. While that sounds bad, it's surprising how balanced it is at times.

- Matt

* note that Iraq isn't the only place that potitions for the US to not be there. A recent case that we should all be aware of is Okinawa as well.
 
I was given to understand that the majority of the terrorist attacks came from Sunni moslems who would not benefit, or rather not gain control of the country, from democracy as they are a minority. And so they bomb Coilition and Iraqis alike to destabalise/prevent democracy.

Obviously there are other terrorist groups, such as those who simply do not want Americans there, and Foreign terrorists who have come to stick it to America, but most of the political attacks come from the Sunni's.

And then theres the whole thing about Iran doing the typically Iranian thing and de-stablising in an attempt to help create a theocracy.

Thats the short story anyway.
 
The once being targeted are the once close to the US government Matt. And the Iraq officals, sorry to say this, were either chosen by the US government or elected through a process already used by the US- meaning democracy. How would you feel personally if the cubans walked into your country and decided to change everything you know, including your religious upbringing an the way things are ruled in your country ? I could imagine, put any American in the same position, they would protest in the same way.



Terrorists exist all over the World Matt. The IRA can be considered terrorists. And the tactics you discuss being used is an ancient one. Guerrilla tactics and one-strike operations have been known since the Vietnam War, even before that.These people have just refined these tactics. And the once doing the scaring at the moment is the US..on its own poeople. Telling them there are terrorists everwhere they look. Which is alot of BS ! I wonder how open Americans even are still towards Middle Eastern ppl or if they consider anyone being from there a 'potential' terrorist ?



They don't just want one government Matt, they want there
own Meaning a government either similar to what they had before or completley non-linked to the US or democracy. And you just said it right, they want the americans out, which should be a hint. People targeted are either government-linked to the US (see above)-British or Allied soldiers or American soldiers. The point they are trying to make is: "Get out of our country. You don't belong here."
 
Just thought I'd throw my two cents in here. Before you go applauding France and Germany for not standing with the US and Britian, it's important to realize both coutires stood to lose billions $$ in oil trade with Saddam out of power.

I agree that the US should not have invaded Iraq. France and Germany agree too, but don't think they were against the war for any moral reasons.
 
So the Iraqis want a goverment that tortures and murder people for not agreeing with them, or even worse for fun and boredom!!!
 
Okay so are you suggesting Iraqi's aren't capable of wanting a democracy- so what do they want? I'm not well enough informed on the history of the area to be sure but I have a sneaking suspicion that not all past controlling bodies of Iraq have been secular totalatarian regimes, so what is your solution? You think the US after removing Sadam should have just pulled out and let the faction with the most weapons take control?


What does religion have to do with any of it? As far as I know Sadams regime was overtly secular probably alot more secular than the next government will be and no-one is being forced to convert to any other religion so what do you mean by changing the "religious upbringing"?

It seems you may have fallen prey to regarding all Middle Eastern people as religious fanatics who all want nothing to do with democracy... Stereotypes = bad but this doesn't just apply to those on the right of the political spectrum.


Its a bit presumptious of you to speak for what all the Iraqi people want- didn't they hold some sort of vote recently and it turned out that an overwhelming majority of Iraqi's are actually in favour of the new government? Of course i'm sure that was just American propaganda but I always find it suspicious when people suggest that anything that would seem to contradict their own argument is propaganda but anything that supports it is the real truth that all the "idiots" just can't realise (so I hope you wont resort to such arguments)!

By the by, why would the Iraqi people want to re-install a totalatarian regime i.e. what they had before, seriously Im still not following why you think Iraqi's and democracy are incompatible?

You know Im actually not in favour of the war but I think taking an extremely biased contrary opinion is not really the way to gain a balanced perspective on the war. While people are willing to look at only one side of an argument then debates a usually little more than people shouting Im right! Im right! and sticking their fingers in their ears anytime someone disagrees.
 
And your point is? I stated that they were terrorists because they are based on an internationally sactioned definition. And yes the IRA are as well (did I suggest that they weren't? If this was dealing with my comments about the British Occupation of Nothern Ireland, I was simply pointing out a similiar situation... my use of insurgents in the previous posts was intended to be sarcastic). I don't believe I stated anywhere in my post that ethicity has anything to do with that designation. You seem to be the one who is hung up on that. I'd consider Timothy McVey a terrorist as well. Same tactics, fits same definition. That's the tough thing about definitions, they have to be applied fairly across the board.

As for the rest of your post, CKava did a great job. There were previously democratic instituions in Iraq. Sadam did oppress the largest secular Muslim Community in Iraq (the Shia) which btw has led to some controversy over the make up of government. Not to mention that the Kurds, also oppressed, practiced a different form of Islam as well.

Beyond that, another reason that Iraq was chosen for invasion is that it has the highest level of per captia education in that section of the middle east. The fact is a number of people were chomping at the bit for democracy. Though there is quite a bit of debate about what type.

I fully admit that this was not an optimal way to start a democracy. But again, I'd suggest that you should read some of the translated Iraqi press that's online to get a better idea of where things are instead of guessing. And see films like
- The control room
- Voices from Iraq
and a number of others that are being made by ALL sides.

Look, I'm not trying to pull rank here, but I'd going to a policy driven, social sciences program at the moment. I've probably had more briefings and lessons on this situation than most people here. And from a pretty wide range of sources (both conservative and liberal), Iraqi and American.

The smple fact, that hopefully is coming out of ALL of my posts is: Nobody gets out clean on this one.

- Matt
 
I don't think they opposed the war for moral reasons. I just said that they opposed the war, that it didn't prevent the war and that I didn't have them in mind when I posted. My point was that we're lucky to live in democracies and that before we go pointing fingers at ours or other people's political leaders we should ask ourselves whether or not as individuals, we really did as much as we could to express our opinions (either way) and exercise our democratic rights. For example, I personally opposed the war but I didn't go on the marches in London or write to my MP. I feel I could have done more.
 
Comments from Iraqis from both sides of the fence....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/voices_from_iraq/html/default.stm

I suggest you all read.
 
Back
Top