I'm really glad we got him, and I think that was a HUGE step in the Iraq campaign. That said, why should we expect ANY respect from the Iraqis when we're spitting on them like this? http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/ap/ap_story.html/Intl/AP.V5288.AP-Saddam-Loyalist.html Quotes from US Military Loudspeakers: ``Whoever carries a weapon will be killed,'' the voice said. ``Any demonstration against the government or the coalition forces will be fired upon,'' the governor, Hussein al-Jaburi, said on a loudspeaker mounted on a U.S. military vehicle. ``If our ears and eyes see you organizing demonstrations or anti-coalition acts, you will be in jail for a very long time.'' Who the hell are we to say we're bringing democracy to Iraq?! This is outrageous to me. As long as we treat them as our dependents, anti-American hatred will fester and grow. This is not a solution for long term stability. It's a recipe for more terrorism. I'm disgusted.
Wow, a page right out of the Tiananmen square textbook. At least the CCP gave em a few weeks to get riled up.
Your thread title is very misleading. How is this addressing 'Saddam' horribly? And what exactly is the level of respect you think Saddam deserves?! From what it sounds like, the messages being sent to the Iraqi people are in an effort to protect US troops. You do agree with this much, don't you?! The Iraqi people have lived under a dictatorship for quite some time. They are accustomed to being addressed in this manner. Many of them are uneducated. You must consider your audience when speaking, and this is all that is happening here. By the way, your second quote was from an Iraqi, not a US serviceman. It is details like this that you purposefully leave out so as to slant the article. This thread is *very* questionable. Vik, in reading between the lines here, I don't like what I see from you. Not only is your timing questionable, but you come across as siding with the Iraqi insurgency as opposed to the US troops.
Easy there TJ, perhaps I should've punctuated the title a bit more clearly. I meant (Disbelief over Saddam) being addressed horribly, not Disbelief over (Saddam being addressed horribly). Sorry about that if it was confusing. I have no problem with the way we're treating Saddam, as long as we don't torture him. Just because the Iraqi people are "used to this" doesn't mean we should continue that way. If a kid is used to being beaten, that doesn't make it any more right to keep beating him. If we go in there under the pretense of bringing democracy to the country, then we better as hell do that. The second quote WAS from an Iraqi serviceman, but if you read a little closer, you'd see he was talking from the loudspeaker on a US Military vehicle. Please take a closer look next time. I find your last statement VERY offensive. Of all the insults I've seen floating around this board, this is by far the worst. Don't you dare question anybody's patriotism just because they don't have the exact same views as you. Leave your personal attacks at home.
So you admit that we aren't really freeing them from dictatorship? You feel that we are just substituting one dictator for another, and that's ok, because it's what they are used to? I thought one of the benefits of this war was that the people might get a change for the better, and be allowed to experience some true freedom. But I guess, according to you, that isn't what we should expect or even want, correct? They are, after all, uneducated, and that means they should be treated in an authoritarian manner.
Here is what I do not understand: We are bringing democracy to Iraq. Great. I'm cool with that. We will be bringing free and fair elections to Iraq. Fine. Cool with that as well. Suppose a mullah or some other Islamist registers under the rules of the election as a candidate for the leader of the new free Iraq, campaigns on a platform for an Islamist government in Iraq, and wins the election fair and square. Will the coalition immediately disqualify the election since a candidate more likable for the US did not win? How will this work?
point one: no we really are not bringing democracy there, nor did we intend to point two: free and fair may take a long long time. point three: If that happens, it will work just like in our country and the second place guy will be the leader. either that or our trained assasination squads will kill him, blame it on the iranians, and continue the war over there. Most likely, we will prevent any such type of person to even run, like our other colonies in the past, such as the philippines, and southern vietnam, we will probably install a US approved government, disregarding any popular candidates that do not agree with their liberators.
The means by which it is accomplished is immaterial, but make no mistake about it, the government that eventually holds power there will be friendly, sympathetic, and cooperative to promoting US energy interests there. Without this provision and assurance, our efforts there will have been a giant exercise in futility and nothing more.
I am considering accepting your apology. Would you say this if your family members were among the thousands who Saddam tortured or killed? Your demagoguery using child abuse is unecessary and significantly weakens your argument. Clearly there is a huge difference in addressing a street mob and abusing children. This goes without saying. Democracy has always been our objective in Iraq, as has been stated repeatedly. The early stages of forming this democracy means instilling order in the country. We must stop attacks on US troops. These messages help to do that. Yes I know, I took the analysis a further than you did here. You tried to subtly imply (though I'm sure you'll deny it) that the messages were from US servicemen since they were being broadcast from US speakers. Typical smear campaign tactics -- provide partial, ambiguous wording and hope the reader glosses over it. Well I didn't. You were clearly trying to create the impression that US troops provided all of the messages -- which they simply did not. Nice try -- didn't work. You find my statement offensive. Great. I find your thread offensive. I am not questioning your patriotism because we have different views. I am questioning it because of your tone, implications, and choice of words and arguments. Big difference. I have every right to question your patriotism based on what you posted. I did not personally attack you. Agian, nice try.
TJ - I am not sure whether you are more conceited or deluded, but what I do know is that I am tired of insecure people telling me that I'm un-American or un-patriotic because of my views on foreign policy, the color of my skin, or my "ethnic-sounding" last name. I'm thankful that I get to work in an environment with other intelligent people who are able to have reasonable discourse and discussion instead of those who simply like to throw gas on the fire. It's not worth arguing anything of substance with you because you don't respond with anything of substance, so for you, I'll be looking into using this "Ignore" feature. to all the other posters, sorry about that. nyquil82 - It certainly has been a stated goal to bring democracy to Iraq. Among other things, see: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/11/19/bush.speech/ where Bush says in his speech, "We will help the Iraqi people establish a peaceful and democratic country in the heart of the Middle East." pippendagimp - the means by which we accomplish our goals are immaterial? I think that thinking is far too Machiavellian for the 21st century. Any foreign policy expert will tell you that in diplomacy, the ends are DIRECTLY a function of the means.
Vik- before you get to deeply enmeshed in today's TJ carnival sideshow, I think you should interpret it as a badge of honor. I'm sure he's just nursing his wounds from the time or two when you detonated his intellectually bankrupt arguments about finance and economics by arguing circles around him, ocomplete with citations to various journal articles. I wish I had bookmarked that, come to think of it.
It is unfortunate that you choose not to rise to my challenge. I would have thought that your convictions would be strong enough to defend your argument. I guess they are not. I accept your complete and unconditional surrender, Vik. VIKTORY IS SWEET AND DELICIOUS
Vik, All I meant was...we did not just spend billions and suffer thousands of casualties to leave all the riches there and proudly walk away from a cozy democracy of our creation. Whether it be via the perception of free election or whatever have you, the certain result will be a puppet regime put in place with the express purpose of maintaining law and order - which in other words means guaranteeing a safe business environment for US and British corporations to plunder Iraq's natural resources. btw, I have only one poster on my ignore list as well. this ignore list is a great great feature.
Amendment II A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. So I guess we won't be giving them help on drafting a bill of rights just yet.
What a pun! I mean, if that can't bring a smile to your face, what can?? Do I dare say that TJ is funnier on this board than AB - someone who provides laughs for a living?
I agree with you here. But the disconnect between the lofty goals of the campaign that were trumpeted by the administration and the reality of the situation is what I find really maddening. Just call us "imperialist-lite". I feel that the presence of a murderous dictator may be enough to constitute a mandate for INTERNATIONAL removal, but imperialistic goals are insufficient. Considering what we were told, I feel duped.
Uh, yeah that would bring a smile as well... Aw, come on, Oski - you are in the sim now, running my old team and you have to ask that? I am disappointed in you. Bottom line is that Jorge knows how to play people on this board. Yes, he does go overboard or to extremes at times, but he has so many here upset with his routine that it is comical to me to see what else he is going to say next. And the sad thing is that the same people let it get to them (although some have finally learned this while others have not).
