Categories Grave On Sunday, would these six Iraqis have voted for the United Iraqi Alliance, or, maybe, the Assembly of Independent Democrats? Post author By jp Post date January 28, 2005 31 Comments on On Sunday, would these six Iraqis have voted for the United Iraqi Alliance, or, maybe, the Assembly of Independent Democrats? I guess we’ll never know. RELATED: Major parties and alliances, the Associated Press ← And Now for Something Important… → Ideological Corrections: For the Record 31 replies on “On Sunday, would these six Iraqis have voted for the United Iraqi Alliance, or, maybe, the Assembly of Independent Democrats?” better to be alive than free, right jp? oh, wait…you’re both. i forgot. My favorite quote ever was in the Wall Street Journal this morning, from our president saying that “We’d gladly leave Iraq if they asked us to” What part of “we’re sawing the heads of your soldiers and blowing up your trucks” don’t we understand? yes, of course it is everyday Iraqis saweing heads off our soldiers. you are SURE of that right? these former bakers and farmers held onto their sick sadistic tendencies for their whole lives and now they are released. they even blew up their own children in schoolbuses and school openings Jessica. what are you just making this up as you go along? go back to your cartoons. Where are these photos from? Can you at least provide a link? I’m guessing they aren’t from the New York Times web site (just a hunch). Um, never mind. I am an idiot. It’s all fun and games until someone loses their brains. Horns, Why is it that you insist repeatedly that there are no “bakers and farmers” involved. You’ve made that statement before on other threads, but I’m not sure you’ve ever proved it. If you have, give me a link, and I’ll apologize. Of course, I’m almost positive that no such defense exists. The fact of the matter is that we don’t know who the insurgents are. But it stands to reason that some of them, at least, had regular jobs before the American invasion. The last time that this subject came up you mentioned the Kennedy Center report on terrorism that shows a link between political oppression and terrorism. Assuming I accept your apparent statement that oppression is the only cause of terrorism, I still don’t understand why it is that some Iraqis, especially lower enlisted soldiers in their former army, wouldn’t have felt oppressed. Lets look at the facts. 1. Iraqis were used to having a politically oppresive regime for decades before the American invasion. 2. Immediately after the invasion there were interruptions in services that had previously been provided by the old regime, despite it’s horrible corruption. 3. Many soldiers who had done nothing wrong besides seeking a better life were forced out of a job without any chance of finding another one. The next step is to imagine that you are that Iraqi. Hypothetically, pretend that you have come from a very poor family and you know the best chance to guarantee your future survival is to join the military. You do just that, but then there is an invasion by Americans who, keep in mind, you have been trained from childhood to hate. Regardless of your brainwashing, you and the majority of your peers surrender to the invading forces; You put down your weapons and harm no one. After the invasion is complete, you find out that the military is disbanded, suddenly you are a trained soldier who has neither a job or an opportunity for one. Keep in mind that you have no real understanding of the democratic process. Now I’ll ask you basically the same question I asked before, which you never answered. Would you be upset? Would you think about reacting violently? What about when your kids started starving? I’m of course not saying I support the insurgents. As a soldier I’m scheduled to ship of to this horrible war in a few months, so of course wish they would go away. But that doesn’t change the fact that I can understand where they are coming from. It doesn’t get more revolting than this. Oh, and I’m talking about the war criminals just elected to office in THIS country. i thought people were starving before we went into Iraq? the antiwar group ANSWER said that we were responsible for 100,000 children starving from sanctions. damned if you do/don’t. i though people weren’t provided basic services before we went in? if we aren’t going to dispute the images from Iraq, what about the open sewers in the streets, and the limited provision of electricity during the day? damned if you do/don’t and i think you are saying you support eh insurgents – because after all, you can see where they are coming from right? Fallujah was the epicenter of the insurgency and it was a horrific brutal city where women were executed in the streets if they were not fully covered or amways accompanied by a husband or family member. the insurgency blew up a school bus and killed dozens of children, then targeted the opening of a school where candy was being given out. the bomb again killed scores of children. so no – i don’t see where they are coming from. i cannot comprehend how a person can be so subhuman that they would intentionally target women and children and saw the heads off innocent victims in the streets. i can tell you for a fact that no matter if i lost my job(been there) i would not support the execution of a charity worker who gave 40 years of her life providing humanitarian aid to the impoverished of Iraq. i don’t think you really understand where they are coming from. Well, Buttercup, do you supposed that three years ago they voted for Saddam Hussein? Of course they did! He got one hundred percent of the vote, after all. Ah, those were the days. You miss them, don’t you? Gee whiz and golly, I sure do miss the days when I masturbated to Bugs Bunny in drag in my cowboy pajamas, a spade knew his place, and women spoke only when spoken to. That’s why I signed up to kill Japs in Iraq, and set up an electric fence to keep little kids out of my yard. gosh darn golly, people are dying in this war? . . . Horns, Understanding where someone is coming from doesn’t mean you support their actions. Do you honestly believe that everyone of the insurgents is all about blowing up buses and beheading innocent people? The people who have committed those atrocities deserve to die. All I’m saying is that it is a mistake to classify all of the insurgents into that group. Some of them may very well believe that they have no other option. I don’t doubt that you have gone through unemployment without resorting to violence. I do wonder what country you were in at that time though. If it was the USA you can’t even begin to compare your experience to theirs. The problem with the current administration is that they have zero empathy. In order to fight an enemy effectively you have to know how they think and predict how they will react. We didn’t do that in Iraq, and we’re not doing it now. But to be honest, my feeling on the insugency is indeed mixed. I got official word recently that I’m going to Iraq in the not too distant future, so I of course do not support the insurgency, as their goal, to some extent, is to kill me. On the other hand, I’m not sure that life has been all that much better for the average Iraqi the last few years. It seems to me that now instead of being threatened by violence from one major, sort of predictable, source (Hussein) they are now threatened by violence from any number of very unpredictable groups of insurgents. My problem with your opinion is basically that you seem to stereotype all insurgents into one group. All I’m asking you to do is recognize that some of them may very well have the best interest of their country-men in their hearts. I’m not sure how currupt my country would be before I would refuse to defend it’s sovereignity. no. they don’t have the best interest of their country-men in their hearts thats absolutely and completely preposterous. this is about intolerance, it is about militant islam and it is about the remnants of Saddam’s regime waging a war to get back what they lost. there’s no excuse for setting bombs to kill innocents, there’s no valid reason for it. we didn’t take the time to muster up empathy for the Nazis in WWII and predict how they will react, we crushed them because their will to power begs that response and that response only. i’m staggered by your twisted view of these animals. here’s an idea – if they thank they know whats best for the country, why don’t they… (wait for it) vote on the issue!! Look, I’ve learned my lesson on this one, I won’t try and convince you that some of the Iraqis fighting the US might have good intentions again. But I will repeat the essence of what I’m trying to say again. The difference in our opinion lies in the fact that I devide the insurgency into two groups. The first views Americans as an unjust occupation force and is engaged with the US millitary and the civilians who directly support that millitary to get us to leave. The second group is full of civilian killing assholes for whom I have no sympathy in the least. The second group makes the news more often than the first group, but that doesn’t necessarilly mean that they are the only ones. That’s all I’m trying to say, that not all the insurgents are evil. Hornsofthedevil you are not schooled in warfare, clearly. “There is no valid reason” for bombing innocents? I don’t agree with it any more than you do, but just like the suicide bombers in Palestine, it’s the only way a shit poor people can fight back against massively superior firepower. They know that if they kill one single US soldier, the American people couldn’t give a f*ck (if they REALLY did, they would have impeached Bush months ago for this whole mess). But if they kill one or two in a spectacularly violent fashion, they know it will be on the evening news, and wear down the American resolve, bit by bit. And no, this is NOT an argument to “stay the course” (what a load of bullshit) it’s an argument to stay the hell out of there in the first place. If someone breaks into your house with a machinegun and you don’t have a firearm, are you going to just lie down and accept it? Of course not, you’re going to reach for the nearest sharp object you can find and do whatever you can to get them OUT. Sooner or later the Americans will realise that most of the insurgents (the ones you DON’T see on the news) are just fighting because as Nameless Soldier points out, you’re in their back yard and now they want you to leave. And don’t for a second think that the US has the moral high ground here (maybe the foothills). Abu Ghraib? The US army pounds targets with cluster bombs, up to 20% of which don’t explode and end up killing innocents. That’s pretty careless and negligent. What about the “accidental” bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Kosovo? And the “accidental” bombing of the Al-Jazzeera headquarters in Iraq? Or the “accidental” bombing of the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad where foreign Journalists are staying. Hmm.. Those “smart” / “precision” munitions are starting to look pretty freakin’ dumb and inaccurate huh?). The reason (and the whole world knows it) the Americans keep losing wars is because they fail to realise that wars of occupation create insurgents. They think they’re so f*cking great that everybody will just drop their arms and accept the might of Rome. But there will always be resistance because as Bush and Cheney and the Neocons have worked out (but stupidly failed to realise applies elsewhere), Nationalism is a much more powerful force than Democracy. The insurgents are not Muslims, or “Saddam Loyalists” (he’s in Jail for cripes’ sake!), they are nationalists, who want to take control of their own destiny. These are the same as “patriots” in America. People who would gladly die to keep their country free of invaders. The second part of this argument is that America fails to realise that most of their people are patriots, but they don’t believe in being a foreign occupying power. The Americans lost in Vietnam because they fought 9 to 5, whereas their enemy (guys with Kalashnikovs in Pajamas and nothing else) were 150% committed to kicking them out, 24/7, and resorting to any means possible. America is too ‘civilised’ to fight a war of occupation. Ironically they are behaving like the British did in the American Revolution – fighting a “gentleman’s war” while the Americans were effectively running a geurilla insurgency. During World War 2, the Allies systematically bombed Dresden until it was a mound of white powder – civilian targets.. The reason? PR, Propaganda, to demoralise the enemy. Eventually the Nazis lost. War is hell. And nobody should start one without a DAMN good reason (and I’m sorry, but controlling the price of Oil is the worst one of all. Anyway you’re all going to pay for it. I don’t know about the rest of you, but me and the Chinese are buying Euros. Yup. It’s amazing that a few dozen dead is being trumpeted as a wild success. ABC News, liberal elite blame America first organ that they are, put it thus: ‘An ink-stained index finger is the indelible mark of victory in Iraq.’ Just because it wasn’t a bloodbath? The future is painful for failing empires. Me and the Burmese are buying Archie Comics. emmanuel, you are so totally right on. “If someone breaks into your house with a machinegun and you don’t have a firearm, are you going to just lie down and accept it? Of course not, you’re going to reach for the nearest sharp object you can find and do whatever you can to get them OUT.” totally dude. nevermind that our housebound iraqi was living in constant fear of a landlord who would cut his tongue out or chop his brother’s head off or gas his whole village or drain his water supply so he would die. fuck the US. i would so totally stab the first US soldier i saw. “The insurgents are not Muslims, or “Saddam Loyalists” (he’s in Jail for cripes’ sake!), they are nationalists, who want to take control of their own destiny. These are the same as “patriots” in America. People who would gladly die to keep their country free of invaders.” that so completely rocks! i mean, the insurgents blow up their fellow iraqis to keep them free. uh, i mean, they free them by blowing them up. YEAH! all those iraqis who voted are just puppets of the US, and the heroic insurgents are helping them see the light…by killing them. “The Americans lost in Vietnam because they fought 9 to 5, whereas their enemy (guys with Kalashnikovs in Pajamas and nothing else) were 150% committed to kicking them out, 24/7…” word, dude. those american vietnam vets were a bunch of lazy shitbirds. i read once that the Tet Offensive resulted in crippling casualties for the NVA and VC. they lost over 40,000 fighters while the US forces lost less than 1500. General Giap was quoted as saying that one good bombing raid would have finished the north altogether. right, whatever. you and i know that those american soldiers were fat and lazy and that was the only possible reason that conflict was a failure. “During World War 2, the Allies systematically bombed Dresden until it was a mound of white powder – civilian targets.. The reason? PR, Propaganda, to demoralise the enemy. Eventually the Nazis lost.” right on part deux, dude. we just should have taken it slow and easy with the Nazis. i mean, why try to hurry up their eventual defeat? it’s not like they were pushing piles of bodies into ditches with bulldozers. your sooth is so on the ball, i need a bong hit to digest how soothful you are. So that last paragraph, about the Nazis.. You’re basically saying that the civilians of Dresden were fair game yes? I understand, the Nazi scourge was so horrific (and it was) that the ends justified the means, correct? So.. The only way to make the German people see the error of their ways was to target them all equally, soldiers and civilians, correct? So really the bombing of innocent civilians in population centers with large, powerful bombs is completely different to what the terrorist fringe of the Iraqi insurgency are doing, completely. Um… Take another bong hit and the truth will go away. ;P from Air Marshall Arthur Harris, the man responsible for the bombing of dresden: “In February of 1945, with the Russian army threatening the heart of Saxony, I was called upon to attack Dresden; this was considered a target of the first importance for the offensive on the Eastern front. Dresden had by this time become the main centre of communications for the defence of Germany on the southern half of the Eastern front and it was considered that a heavy air attack would disorganise these communications and also make Dresden useless as a controlling centre for the defence. It was also by far the largest city in Germany – the pre-war population was 630,000 – which had been left intact; it had never before been bombed. As a large centre of war industry it was also of the highest importance.” hmm. ugly and horrible, yes. but there is no doubt that the attack helped end the second world war. perhaps, in your fantastic wisdom, you can relate for me how the iraqi terrorists blowing up their own people to prevent them from voting is comparable. Emmanuel, you are still clinging to the ludicrous idea that this is all for oil? every oil trancscation by Iraq is open to the world press and in the years since the toppling of Saddam, there has not been ONE ctrooked transaction revealed. though the media has anxiouisly poured over every figure, there is NO robbing of the Iraq oil. in fact, the first oil contracts to be handed out by Iraq went to Turkey and Canada. Also from Bomber Harris: On the 1920s Iraqi rebellion “the only thing the Arab understands is the heavy hand.” Churchill on Area Bombing: “It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, should be reviewed.” Harris himself knew if the Empire lost the war he’d be tried as a war criminal. Personally I think the Germans deserved what they got, “reaped the whirlwind” as Bomber put it. Who’s to say what we deserve? That is, sadly, the sort of decision only your enemy can make. Kurt Vonnegut, author of “Slaughterhouse Five” who was a POW in Dresden during the bombing had this to say : “Because of the weather conditions the firestorm became a single flame – a tornado of fire. When we came out of the underground meat locker where we were hiding we saw what looked like sticks of firewood, but they were actually people who’d been exposed to the bombing. I’ll never forget what Dresden looked like on the ground after that bombing. It was desolation, like being on the moon. As we walked through it, an American plane machine gunned us but missed and we were marched over the ruins out of town by our guards, who were locals – kids and wounded old men. They had lost all their families. In the United States, there are two requirements for a person to be president. You have to be at least 35 years old and born in the US. I’d like to add a third – you should never have been in the air force because when you’re in the Air Force you don’t have to see what it looks like on the ground when you bomb it. At the time, the bombing was justified as an attempt to end the war by demoralising the enemy, who, after all, had started the air bombing. The firebombing of Dresden did not free one person from a death camp. It did not make one German soldier surrender earlier. The only person who benefited from it was probably me – I must have earned at least $5 for every person who died there because of the success of my book.” “SHOCK AND AWE”. Nobody is saying terrorists blowing up their own people are ‘freedom fighters’. The fact is that the American media feeds its people bullshit every single day and unlike the rest of the world, the people have not yet worked out that there is a stark difference between these “terrorists” (who are committing disgusting, inhuman horrific, abhorrent acts who must never ever be legitimised and must always be condemned), and actual “insurgents” or “freedom fighters” who are genuinely fighting to get the American forces OUT of their country. Their killing is no less justifiable, but then niether is the American forces killing civilians in Fallujah (over 600 confirmed). But in the context of warfare it is understandable, and was predicted. “Not in my backyard” in a population armed to the teeth. You should be familiar with that in the USA with your right to bear arms. The incredible thing is that this anarchy was PREDICTED TO THE SECOND by critics of the war before it was launched. “There are no WMD” they said. True. “Dislodging Saddam without a plan to keep the peace will create terrorism and civil war”. TRUE. (terrorists bombing their own people are tribe against tribe, Sunni versus Shiia) “Thousands of Americans and Iraqis will die.” TRUE. The USA and its allies will be in a quagmire.” TRUE. There were elections yes. American media is reporting that 80% of the population turned out to vote. International media is reporting that 80% of those REGISTERED to vote turned out. It is notable that a pittance of the Sunni minority actually registered or voted – not that their numbers would have made a difference. America may well have created a Shia Caliphate in Iraq that will cause it problems for as long as they care to hang around (and building 8 permanent military bases there certainly suggests they will). That is the reality of their Iraqi democracy. Personally I think that’s wonderful. They reap what they sow. Those who look beneath the surface of these elections will also find they are -anything- but free and fair. Many people are not even allowed to know the name of some of their candidates for “security reasons”, and are simply voting along tribal and ethnic lines. Let me ask you this, dear patriotic friends. If it’s not Oil, if it’s not WMD, tell me exactly WHY is it America is in Iraq? Democracy? Hah! So why haven’t you invaded : Myanmar, China, North Korea, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, etc., etc., etc.,.. Would it have anything to do with a lack of strategic / resources / interests, or realpolitik (Saudi Arabia is a case in point). The rhetoric of spreading democracy does not tally with the reality of militaristic expansion. Forcing democracy on a population is like saying to someone “look you MUST practice safe sex, and in order to prove it to you I’m going to wear a condom while I rape you”. I’m thoroughly pleased the Iraqis got an election. I’m also not at all stunned it was just days before the state of the union. The current US administration have spin doctors that would make Leni Riefenstahl and Joseph Goebbels BLUSH. “May we live in interesting times.” EG I was with you the whole time until you went right back to comparing bush to hitler in your last sentence. Great post. Thorough, factual and well written. I agree fully with your sentiment, I don’t think any leader we see in the U.S of A will ever reach such thorough evil without hope for redemption that Hitler brought to his country. I left out a crucial BUT in my last sentence. BUT I don’t think we’ll ever see a president in our country as bad as Hitler. I don’t think any country will. I don’t think anyone is saying Bush is the Hitler of 1942 but maybe he has disturbing similarities to Hitler of 1932. But like I’ve said in past threads, I think the hitler comparisons are just a cheap way of saying “I think Bush is a bad guy”. I think putting a spin on iraqi voter turnout is a little different than putting a spin on a genocide of millions of people. It just a hot button nitpick of mine. If I could let it go, I’d be a better person. Every time someone hates someone, they’re Hitler. it gets tiresome. For the most part I agree but until he retires I’m keeping my eyes open and my gun loaded. Fair point about the comparisons to Hitler. But I should make it clearer that I was comparing their propaganda machine to Hitler. I once heard someone say that the Nazis didn’t lose the war, they just had to move. While it’s a semi ludicrous statement in one regard, it’s accurate when one looks at White House spin. Any student of PR or Media should be thoroughly impressed by their doublespeak abilities (“No child left behind” in an act that cripples schools, “Help America vote” in an act that helps the elite vote at the expense of minorities). Nonetheless, this does not make them Nazis. As for comparing the vote to the gas chambers – well that’s not the comparison I was aiming for. Semi fascist, perhaps, but Bush loves Israel too much to be like Hitler. In fact he’s part of a world Jewish conspiracy. ( only kidding 😉 ). Heh. At the very least, GWB is working for Big Brother… Or he IS Big Brother. I’m not sure yet, I haven’t quite worked it out. No worries EG. Just being a nitpicker. I agree with your sentiments, to be sure. I think the biggest difference we’re overlooking between GWB and Hitler is; hitler was pretty smart. I just don’t think W has the brain ability to be an evil genius. Yeah true, it’s really the people around him you have to worry about. Heh.. Which reminds me of a joke which you’ve all probably heard but still gives me a chuckle. It goes something like : “Apparently there’s a move to have Dick Cheney impeached, which is a real worry – if Cheney is impeached then Bush might become the president”… thread.too.long.sorry. Comments are closed.