Gossamer Forum
Home : General : Chit Chat :

Iraq "Anarchy"

Quote Reply
Iraq "Anarchy"
OMG there is breaking news on tv...Baghdad has gone crazy. The regime's main guys have disappeared and everyone has gone crazy...loads of looting and celebrations.
Quote Reply
Re: [Paul] Iraq "Anarchy" In reply to
What did you expect? There's a vacume of power, it's now what is called "the law of the jungle" there. Same with Basra.

- wil
Quote Reply
Re: [Paul] Iraq "Anarchy" In reply to
Quote Reply
Re: [ArmyAirForces] Iraq "Anarchy" In reply to
I was gutted - I wanted to watch that. I watched for about 20 minutes when they were hitting it with a sledge hammer and tieing rope around it but then my friend came around and I had to go and play golf =(

Last edited by:

Paul: Apr 9, 2003, 10:01 AM
Quote Reply
Re: [Paul] Iraq "Anarchy" In reply to
Powerful images. Much work remains, but the yoke of fear is being thrown off.
Quote Reply
Re: [ArmyAirForces] Iraq "Anarchy" In reply to
Seems it is coming to an end...Smile

Klaus

http://www.ameinfo.com
Quote Reply
Re: [klauslovgreen] Iraq "Anarchy" In reply to
Maybe not just yet but it sure helps when the Iraqi's are celebrating =)
Quote Reply
Re: [Paul] Iraq "Anarchy" In reply to
Yes well it sounds like it is getting there - hope it will finish soon...

Klaus

http://www.ameinfo.com
Quote Reply
Re: [ArmyAirForces] Iraq "Anarchy" In reply to
Yes, Amerika has defeated another former friend and ally, who no longer served its geopolitical and economical interests in the Middle East - I can see {red} Rumsfeld going through the ashes of Iraq, looking for the sword (as a keepsake of better times when the US turned a blind eye to the use of WMD [supplied in part by the Amerikans] during the Iraq-Iran war in which the Amerikans supported Iraq in its war against Iran, another former friend and ally of Amerika until they kicked out their US-supported brutal and sadistic dictator) he brought to Saddam as a gift from Amerika. The Israelis could learn a valuable lesson from the Bush regime in the conquering of Arabs (as Bush regime learned...). Perhaps Arafat should be targeted for regime change (it is still on the [war criminal] 'Bulldozers' list of possible actions). The IDF could drop a couple of bunker busters on the Arafat compound. Israel-Palestine war over. Amerika also wins as its Middle East friend and ally, Israel (and holder of WMD's who also does not mix well with its neighbours), emerges as the conquering hero. Might as well, Saddam is martyred in the Muslim world, including Palestine where the people have united behind him. Wrong, yes. But uniting against the non-Muslim world, yes. Regardless, peace between Israel and Palestine (and the Muslim world in general) is no longer a likely possibility.

And the crusade between the Christian democrats and the Moslim autocrats continues as the US (and UK in easy tow) targets Syria and Iran for regime change. Amerika hopes for 'democratic' popular uprisings (seen these before) in Syria and (evil) Iran, but as they are identified as terrorist states with weapons of mass destruction and a history of not mixing well with their neighbours, blitzrieg (Bush Regime rehashed term) military action will more than likely be necessary. Some say heir Bush will wait until re-election (maybe this time he'll get the 'majority' of the electorate behind him). But it would be more cost effective to launch lightning air attacks now while the US and UK still have their forces assembled in the immediate Middle East region. Time will tell. And there is still North Korea. Better hit them soon. They may be purchasing relatively high tech military assets from China, and perhaps Russia (both their friends and allies). And, China (and maybe Russia) will prevent any UN sanctions or other actions directed against North Korea. Not in their best interests. China even forecasts an eventual war between them and the US within the next five to 20 years (have you read first hand, the Chinese communist party rhetoric directed against the US) - they (like North Korea) are carefully watching and studying the US-Iraq war for lessons to be learned, and for military assets to develop and purchase. Russia moving in a squadron of ships and nuclear submarines into Indian Sea for exercises with India later this month through to May. Mote than likely harmless, but not a good time to get all the boys together in the same region. Fear mongering, no. Just a reality check. Actions have consequences, and Bush is not one to understand or appreciate that credo. I don't see global war soon or in the near future, but the kindling has been piled in the pit, and matches are in hand.

Fortunately being from outside the US, I can express these views without fear of government reprisals. No US Patriot Act here that could have my government sweep me up as a suspected terrorist, and then hold me indefinitely (life if it serves their purpose) - without any legal recourse or representation. Extremely unlikely, at least now. But the next devastating terrorist attack on US soil (knock on wood that I'm wrong) may change the sociopolitical climate in Amerika. Is America all that different as it was in 1941? After all, if you are not for us, you (like the US-listed terrorist states) are against us - warped Sesame Street style geopolitical stance. The Bush regime really has this figured out backwards and forwards. Lesson learned, and history forgotten. Battle won, war lost. But who knows, maybe you will win this war like the war on drugs.

----
Cheers,

Dan
Founder and CEO

LionsGate Creative
GoodPassRobot
Magelln

Last edited by:

dan: Apr 9, 2003, 12:07 PM
Quote Reply
Re: [dan] Iraq "Anarchy" In reply to
5,000,000 people are celebrating today. Give that some thought too =)
Quote Reply
Re: [Paul] Iraq "Anarchy" In reply to
Actually no. Not my tv. There is still a great deal of resentment of Amerika in Iraq - based on part by interviews with Iraqis outside Iraq, news reports from non-embedded journalists, and personal communications I've had with friends and others (mostly Iraqi expatriots in Canada, but a few still in Iraq). Iraqis in Basra are already at the turning point. And the 'joy' you see now (at least by the thousands you see on tv), is fleeting and is not so much with the US as it is with the removal of Saddam. This will change. It always does. And the joy is not felt in the Muslim world outside Iraq. The longer the US-UK occupation of conquered Iraq, the resentment will quickly rekindle deep anger. But regardless and sadly, a few million more Muslims have taken up the cause in the war against the Western world. If only one-tenth of one-tenth, succeed, then the war on terrorism has just taken a huge step backwards. One that will never be taken back. And how many heavily financed and people supported bin Ladens have been born. Have you seen what's going in some Muslim countries. In Egypt people are beginning to openly criticise and march against their government - very frowned upon by the Egyptian government and usually blocked to the point that open dissent is crushed. Less so every day as the Muslim populace stands up to their governments in open defiance. Governments and monrachies in the Muslim world (including Saudi Arabia and Jordan) will teeter and fall in the coming years as a result of popular revolts, but not in favour of US-friendly democracies. The months and years to come will be interesting to say the least. It would be ncie if we could all co-exist in peace, but it's in no one's best (geopolitical or religious) interests.

----
Cheers,

Dan
Founder and CEO

LionsGate Creative
GoodPassRobot
Magelln
Quote Reply
Re: [dan] Iraq "Anarchy" In reply to
You join a long list of those on the wrong side of history, and the wrong side of this argument.

From the early 1970s through 1991 the Iraqis purchased over $40 billion dollars worth of arms supplied by the Soviet Union and France.

The US did actively support Iraq in the mid-1980s during its war against Iran, a country that held 54 US embassy staff prisoner for 444 days and financed the kidnappings & murder of US citizens in Lebanon. A country that the US Navy engaged in a low level conflict during the "Tanker War" phase of the Iran-Iraq war.

Other portions of your post simply not worth responding to. Enjoy your delusions.
Quote Reply
Re: [dan] Iraq "Anarchy" In reply to
Quote:
is not so much with the US as it is with the removal of Saddam.

Of course, but the US never did this for a pat on the back, they did it to liberate Iraq, so if they are cheering because of Saddam's removal then the US have achieved their goal (well part of it).

There's no doubt there are still anit-US muslims, but I'm also sure there will be less after today.
Quote Reply
Re: [ArmyAirForces] Iraq "Anarchy" In reply to
Enjoy your right-wing, conservative Amerikan (delusional) propaganada. It's the gift that continues to give, in terms of its entertainment value - for the price that none of us can truly afford.

----
Cheers,

Dan
Founder and CEO

LionsGate Creative
GoodPassRobot
Magelln
Quote Reply
Re: [dan] Iraq "Anarchy" In reply to
Should I respond with "Kaniduh" or something equally childish?

I don't see how you can expect anybody to take you seriously or worthy of continued dialog.
Quote Reply
Re: [dan] Iraq "Anarchy" In reply to
Quote:
It's the gift that continues to give, in terms of its entertainment value

You mean like your avatar that somewhat bizarrely morphs a dictator with a liberator =)
Quote Reply
Re: [Paul] Iraq "Anarchy" In reply to
It was never about liberating Iraq. That was a consequence, but not the primary goal per se (although I believe it may have been for UK PM Blair) - commonly felt in a large part of the non-Muslim world like Europe. And I disagree, you more likely to see more US-anti Muslims. But at the very least, the ones now are more dedicated and driven in their hatred of the Western world, and their committent to defend the Muslim world. I in no way support terrorism. No ifs, ands, or buts. 911 was a tragedy that should not have happened. Like most other nations, Canada put our full support behind the US and the war on terrorism. Got my vote too (in spades), although with some provisals in terms of how the war is fought. But to avoid another one is not by conquering Muslim nations. Not this way. Most nations (if at least just the people if not the government - Muslim and non-Muslim) and religions are united in their resolve that this war was wrong and illegal. Immoral, unethical, and poorly thought out. A quick win often glorifies and vindicates the battle. But necessarily the war. The war is fought on another level, whose consequences can often be unpredictable, farreaching, and longstanding. And to reiterate from another posting, I'm not resentful of Americans per se. I take people on a person-to-person basis. Just the US political-military machine, and the US Bush administration I abhor (and fear).

Anyways, live long and prosper to all. You can all now have the final and last words. I'm done. Typing all of these with two fingers has drained me.

----
Cheers,

Dan
Founder and CEO

LionsGate Creative
GoodPassRobot
Magelln
Quote Reply
Re: [ArmyAirForces] Iraq "Anarchy" In reply to
Actually I believe the accepted satiric is C-eh-n-eh-d-eh Smile But either works. But fair enough, and I've changed my avatar to something less silly.

----
Cheers,

Dan
Founder and CEO

LionsGate Creative
GoodPassRobot
Magelln
Quote Reply
Re: [Paul] Iraq "Anarchy" In reply to
In Reply To:
You mean like your avatar that somewhat bizarrely morphs a dictator with a liberator =)

Liberator? I'd not go so far - the "war on terrorism" is not based on wanting to liberate, but instead on wanting to exact revenge for the terrorist attacks against the U.S., and advance U.S. interests (why Blair jumped on board is beyond me - he probably politically sacrificed himself by doing so). There are far worse countries in the world that would gain far more from being "liberated" (Syria is a good example), yet these countries are not included in the "them" category. So, it's difficult to believe that Bush is really just trying to improve the world.

I actually agree with the idea of taking out brutal military dictatorships, such as that of Iraq. These rulers have absolutely no interest in anything but their personal comfort, and protecting themselves. What I don't agree with is tricking people into political support for launching such an attack. 40% of Americans now believe that Saddam was directly responsible for Sept. 11th, because "Terrorist", "9/11", "Saddam", and "Iraq" have so often been used in the same sentence by political higher-ups, even though it has never been even so much as claimed that there is indeed a link.

So by all means, go to war with Saddam, take him and his cronies out, but don't try to pretend that this is somehow going to prevent future terrorism. An event such as what happened on Sept. 11th was orchestrated by a small handful of people who hate America. They aren't jealous - they don't want America for themselves, they simply want to hurt America. Civilian casualties _did_ occur in Afganistan, and they are occuring now in Iraq. I find it difficult to believe that someone who lost a family member because of, as they see it, American influence, is ever going to be convinced that they should not hate America. Get a couple dozen of them together, and a bit of financial support, and you can easily have another 9/11 on your hands.

What is the solution? I don't know, maybe there isn't one. But I think that engaging in wars with other countries is bound to make the situation worse. However, it could also be that _not_ taking Saddam out of power poses a larger and more dangerous threat than leaving him in power. So it is possible that the current action is simply the best of two evils - I really don't know which one is better.

Don't think that the entire population of Iraq is now celebrating. Many people in Iraq don't feel any great love for Americans. I'm sure news reporters could just as easily find people who are loathing the American "invasion," they simply choose not to show it in America and Britain. I've seen, on Canadian news programs, interviews with people who are opposed to war, and who offer some pretty decent reasons against war. Whether or not you _agree_ with a dissenting opinion is one thing, but not even seeing it is entirely another.

Jason Rhinelander
Gossamer Threads
jason@gossamer-threads.com
Quote Reply
Re: [dan] Iraq "Anarchy" In reply to
Quote:
That was a consequence, but not the primary goal

What was the primary goal?

Quote:
And I disagree, you more likely to see more US-anti Muslims.

It's a matter of opinion. If more muslims become anti-US after seeing the scenes in Baghdad today, then they clearly have no respect for their fellow muslims who have suffered for decades under Saddam's rule.

Quote:
But to avoid another one is not by conquering Muslim nations.

You are using inappropriate words to facilitate your position on the war and your feelings towards the US government. It's not about "conquering".

Quote:
Most nations (if at least just the people if not the government - Muslim and non-Muslim) and religions are united in their resolve that this war was wrong and illegal.

"Most"? ...where is your support evidence for that. I can remember Donald Rumsfelds speech pointing out 45 supporting coalition countries but I don't remember any evidence supporting the idea that "most" nations believe it is wrong and illegal.

Quote:
Immoral, unethical, and poorly thought out.

Poorly thought out in what respect? That of a Canadian with a dislike for the US government? Laugh

Quote:
You can all now have the final and last words. I'm done.

I've learned it is a fatal mistake to say that because you re-post Laugh


.

Last edited by:

Paul: Apr 9, 2003, 2:34 PM
Quote Reply
Re: [Jagerman] Iraq "Anarchy" In reply to
Quote:
Liberator? I'd not go so far - the "war on terrorism" is not based on wanting to liberate, but instead on wanting to exact revenge for the terrorist attacks against the U.S., and advance U.S. interests (why Blair jumped on board is beyond me - he probably politically sacrificed himself by doing so).

It's the easy answer to say it is revenge. The reality is probably that they are trying to prevent terrorism in the future by taking out the instigators. Unfortunately to the slightly narrow minded it probably looks like plain old revenge Wink

Quote:
There are far worse countries in the world that would gain far more from being "liberated" (Syria is a good example), yet these countries are not included in the "them" category. So, it's difficult to believe that Bush is really just trying to improve the world.

Mmm yeah and let's not forget the fact that Syria sent support to the Iraqi army as well as 4000 suicide bombers.

Quote:
40% of Americans now believe that Saddam was directly responsible for Sept. 11th, because "Terrorist", "9/11", "Saddam", and "Iraq" have so often been used in the same sentence by political higher-ups, even though it has never been even so much as claimed that there is indeed a link.

If Americans believe that then I guess that is their prerogative. I don't personally take that stance.

Quote:
So by all means, go to war with Saddam, take him and his cronies out, but don't try to pretend that this is somehow going to prevent future terrorism.

I assume you are talking indirectly about the US government as I've never said it would reduce terrorism.

Quote:
What is the solution? I don't know, maybe there isn't one. But I think that engaging in wars with other countries is bound to make the situation worse. However, it could also be that _not_ taking Saddam out of power poses a larger and more dangerous threat than leaving him in power. So it is possible that the current action is simply the best of two evils - I really don't know which one is better.

THat's probably about right. There are two choices, leave him in power and let him develop WMD and sell them to terrorists who already have financial support and the desire to carry out attacks _OR_ take out Saddam and in the process perhaps cause some anti-american feeling amongst civilians, but civilians who are very unlikely to ever carry out terrorist attacks and have financial backing.

Quote:
I'm sure news reporters could just as easily find people who are loathing the American "invasion," they simply choose not to show it in America and Britain.

That's incorrect - anyway how do you know what they are showing in Britain =) ....I was watching Sky News earlier when they showed an interview with an iraqi - his friend and 3 children were killed by a US bomb and he was saying how much he hated the US.

Last edited by:

Paul: Apr 9, 2003, 2:34 PM
Quote Reply
Re: [Paul] Iraq "Anarchy" In reply to
In Reply To:
That's incorrect - anyway how do you know what they are showing in Britain =) ....I was watching Sky News earlier when they showed an interview with an iraqi - his friend and 3 children were killed by a US bomb and he was saying how much he hated the US.

Such a story would never be shown on any mainstream US news station, unless it was presented in a "isn't this guy stupid and fucked up" sort of way. Frown

Jason Rhinelander
Gossamer Threads
jason@gossamer-threads.com
Quote Reply
Re: [Jagerman] Iraq "Anarchy" In reply to
I'd like to think the UK are more "mature" with their news broadcasting. Infact, one of our news channels was making fun of one of the US news channels and the way it totally over dramatized the war with expensive graphics flying across the screen and tacky slogans.

I think the UK media give a much more balanced perspective.

Last edited by:

Paul: Apr 9, 2003, 2:43 PM
Quote Reply
Re: [Jagerman] Iraq "Anarchy" In reply to
Quote:
I find it difficult to believe that someone who lost a family member because of, as they see it, American influence, is ever going to be convinced that they should not hate America.


I would cite post-war Germany and Japan as examples. The Allies waged a terribly costly war against them where civilian casualties dwarfed anything seen in recent memory.

Rebuilding and occupation in both countries was a much more serious undertaking, as the destruction levels were so much greater.

Are there still Germans, Japanese or Italians who hold grudges (and vice versa from the Allied side), certainly but they are in the minority. There is an amazingly human capacity to forgive and to change. I could regale you with many first hand accounts of former enemy combatants and the extent to which the past was set aside between them in favor of friendship.

Valid questions:
  • Did this war take hate and make it stronger?
  • How much more hate is needed before they are more of a potential threat?
  • Would they have hated us less if there had been no war?
  • Did the war create new hate?


I believe there will be no more hate in those countries than what is already created and taught in schools, private homes, and in some religious schools every day.

So I submit that Afghanistan and Iraq stand not as symbols for more hatred of western society, but as a lesson of caution for some and of hope for a great many more.

The opportunities for a free Iraq and her people are astonishing, as the flood of returning expatriot technocrats will attest to.

Last edited by:

ArmyAirForces: Apr 9, 2003, 2:59 PM
Quote Reply
Re: [Paul] Iraq "Anarchy" In reply to
So I hear they're saying on the Ark Royal. Switching off the BBC and carrying Sky News instead. Tongue

There is a wide spectrum of US media outlets. From the absurd to the very serious. And contrary to Jason's claim, Iraqis, their dead, and their grief has been shown on television screens here.

Last edited by:

ArmyAirForces: Apr 9, 2003, 2:53 PM