Saudi Arabia Will Protect Sunnis if the U.S. Leaves

That doesn't change the fact that Saddam killed them.

Sure, he bears some responsibility.

The UN?

Only to the same degree I accept the Lancet numbers. That is why I stated 'Please don't float the Hopkins/Lancet 600,000 number - it's been thoroughly debunked. But if you want to use high end estimates ..." Sorry you wasted the time doing the searches, you should have just asked for clarification.

Or he could do it in groupings, which is historically how he managed to kill so many people.

 

Finish the job?!?!?! I hate those words, it is what my wife is always telling me.

 

So Saddam killed Iraqi soldiers in the Iran/Iraq war?

Visit the Middle East Hayesstreet. See the masses of people who moved out of Iraq now, but didn't for so long under the Saddam regime.

Point: It might/should get better. But at this point, life is not better in Iraq. No one is sitting there saying "Thank God for the war." No one is sitting there thinking "a job well done."

Certainly, you don't believe that's what's happening. More Iraqis are dying and going hungry with no light visible at the end of the tunnel right now. If there was no light either way, then I'm sure everyone would rather have less liberty than more death.

 

At least four million Iraqis left the country because of Saddam.

 

Spare me. As if the hoards of people who snuck out and are sneaking out can be measured. Four million in how long? Where did you get that figure from? How many people do you think fled after Saddam?

They're so desperate some of them are sneaking into frikkin Iran. Can you imagine? People are TRYING to go there. That's how bad it is.

 

Ah, so the number is immeasurable? Then I guess you can't tell how many have left post-Saddam, lol.

 

No, a number can't be pin pointed. I was making an educated guess.

Does that make you happy?

 

I know that you don't believe the Shiites who claim that even at the time of the U.S. invasion they weren't in favor it. And I agree they didn't like Saddam, and suffered under him.

I am not inclined to believe the Shiites are lying about their feelings, and tend to believe they weren't in favor of a U.S. invasion at the time.

Seperately than that, I do wish for Iraq to have a stable democratic nation. I don't believe that forcing a war that they didn't ask for, and then acting surprised when they aren't thankful that we turned their nation into total chaos, and made it bloodier and more dangerous than it was before is really a sensible policy for Iraq. I just think there were better ways to bring about democracy for Iraq.

 

Hayes, this is one of those statements that is meaningless when one bothers to take a look at it.

Yes, they have more liberty from the "government." They have anarchy. This is supposed to be a plus?

Pluralistic?? You can parse this to your heart's content. The fact remains that the "government" barely functions. The Kurds are having their own government in their region, while it lasts. They are in essence apart from this "government" you mention.

This is the capper. With Saddam, you had brutal stability. Today, you have brutal anarchy. The Shia are a host of different groups, many tribal based, busy trying to kill the other groups, or keep from getting killed by them. The different militias fight each other, or they maintain an unruly standoff, waiting for their chance at power. Elections have nothing to do with it. Since they are at a stand, because we are still hanging around, they are busy killing Sunnis and the occasional Kurd instead. The Sunnis are almost exactly the same. They are made up of tribal and religious based groups, with any unity they have brought about by trying to keep from being killed by the majority Shia. The elections were something that they largely stayed out of. The way the "government" is "functioning," maybe they are on to something. Meanwhile, the terrorists who've flocked to the poor "country" are just blowing various targets up, creating as much chaos as possible, because they see chaos as good.

And we are becoming less and less relevant by the day. Really, Hayes, sometimes I wonder where you get this mindset that you have. Iraq is an insane mess. We created it. As horrible as Saddam was, I can easily see how a majority of Iraqis are looking at the period with increasing fondness, just as so many of the masses in the former Soviet Union miss the certainty that they would have a roof over their head, food on their plate, health care, and an education. Their price? Another brutal dictatorship. Yet many do miss it.

The middle class in Iraq? The educated? Those needed for a modern state to function at a relatively high level, and to produce progress as we in the West view progress? They are dead, or they have fled. Those that remain hide in fear of the knock on the door, the bus pulled over to sort out who gets tortured and shot, the automobile riddled with bullets in traffic.

Really Hayes, with all due respect, and you know I respect you... how long can you keep this up? George W. Bush has destroyed the country of Iraq as a modern secular state. The Kurds will lose their freedom, unless we manage to keep bases there to prevent the Turks, Shia, and Sunnis from taking their Kurdistan away. The powers in Iraq now, putting us aside, are militias controlled by religious leaders bent on gaining power. They have no interest in Democracy. None worth mentioning, and none worth the United States spending it's blood and treasure on. Those who could have helped create something like George Junior's fantasy are those fleeing, hiding, or dead educated Iraqis I mentioned earlier.

All in my opinion, of course.



D&D. Backs are Tricky.

 

Read it somewhere, I'll see if I can find a link. Don't know about the methodology.

I don't think you've ever substantiated this assertion other than to give the results of a present day poll, which in itself has massive problems. You've never shown something pre-intervention to back this up.

I disagree. Being out from under a totalitarian regime is a good thing. That there is a great degree of instability is bad, I agree, but this is IMO a temporary transitional state.

Which is turning the average Muslim away from groups like Al Qaeda, again a good thing.

Not really. Very few would chose to go back under Saddam just as very few would chose to go back to the Soviet Union.

He has destroyed a totalitarian state. That simply isn't something worth saving IMO. I also wish this had gone a lot better than it has. I admit I underestimated the power grabbing that has occured and wish we had executed the intervention differently, but I will wait and see how this develops.

Now you are predicting the future and it includes doom for the Kurds? That hardly seems reasonable. On one hand you point to the present and how bad the situation is in th Shiite and Sunni areas, then you discount that completely positive situation with the Kurds? C'mon, Deckard. As far as the Kurds go the intervention has been a complete success. They've had exactly the response to the intervention we hoped the rest of Iraq would have, and they are getting all the benefits of it: stability, democracy, and economic prosperity.

Pre-intervention everyone talked about how secular and educated the majority of the Iraqi population was - the majority of Iraqis haven't disappeared, died, or fled. They're still there, Deckard. The militias are creating havoc out of proportion to their actual support but I don't think that will last.

 

There weren't pre intervention polls regarding the invasion.

But the poll I showed asked two questiosn.

1. What is your feelings currently about the invasion.

2. What were your feelings prior to the invasion.

I don't know why they would lie about question number 2.

 

I'm not so sure about that. I've heard there is a fair amount of Soviet nostalgia in Russia these days and one of the reasons for Putin's ability to remain popular is his KGB background that remind people of the days when the streets were safe and Russia was a superpower. Like FB I've seen polling that says that many Iraqis think things were better under Saddam. I don't know about polling if a lot of people would like Saddam back in power. I'm guessing there is though considering all of the Iraqis who have protested Saddam's trial but I don't know if any polls have been conducted with that specific question.

Yes and Yugoslavs in the 80's were considered the most moderate and western leaning of the Eastern European Communists states. That still didn't stop them from engaging in ethnic massacres of each other after Tito died.

 

Doesn't have to be a lie, FB. Is there reason to believe a Shiite today is less likely to say they'd support a US intervention to remove Saddam than they might have before the intervention? I think the answer to that is a resounding yes.

We can speculate both ways I guess. There is little substantive evidence to suggest those in the ex-Soviet Union want or wanted a return of the totalitarian structure, but rather some evidence that they wanted more help with basic subsistance. As you point out the polls don't ask this question. Saying you felt there were less security problems when Saddam when was in power does not translate into 'we wish Saddam was still in power.' My point is that extrapolations from such a poll are just that, not inherently logic leaps as some seem to believe.

True. Not sure what bearing that has on my post.

 

Why? If it was resentment towards the state of matters today why wouldn't they just give that answer in the question about current support for the invasion, which did have worse numbers than the other question.

Also it seems like it would more insulting to the U.S. to say we supported it at first, but they let us down after all of our support for them than to say we never supported it. They could even claim they were mislead or backstabbed.

I understand that you probably won't change your feelings that they wouldn't answer that question accurately, but I just don't see any reason why they wouldn't at least in large enough numbers to throw the sampling completely off.

 

For one perceptions change. For another you'd be less like as a Shiite on the street or in your living room to say 'sure I supported the US effort' because of current opinion (ie you might not want to say you supported the US then). I'm not sure how you're ignoring that possibility. I'm pretty sure there are people who voted for Bush who wouldn't say they did today. This isn't any different except there is no reprecussion of saying you voted for Bush.

 

I may be wrong, but I don't believe the people who took the poll had their names and responses made public. I would believe that effort was made to not make that info public. I would think if someone wanted they wouldn't even have to let others know that they participated in the poll at all.

 

Where was the poll taken? In the street, on the front porch? In front of other people? That would affect the outcome. However, even if that were true that each person was interviewed in isolation, it still doesn't change the first two parts of my answer.

 

"Some Saudi Shiites" - writes Trofimov - "are pinning their hopes on the U.S. An American invasion of Iraq, they believe, would liberate Iraq´s majority Shiite population, which has been excluded from power by Saddam Hussein and previous rulers. Though few Saudi Shiites expect a Shiite government to emerge in Iraq if Mr. Hussein is deposed, they believe that any move toward democracy there would give Iraq´s Shiites unprecedented power - which they might use to end persecution of their Saudi brethren."

http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=6911&eng=y

This approach became evident in a number of high-level decisions taken by Tehran during 2002-2003. For example, first, against all declared ideological and political principles of the Iranian revolution and its proclaimed enmity toward the US and its polices, the Iranian leadership encouraged its allies – the main Iraq Shiite opposition parties – to move closer to the US, especially during the crucial months preceding the US invasion when Washington was preparing for post-invasion political arrangements. From mid-2002 to invasion, Iraqi ayatollahs and prominent Shiite political and religious figures frequently visited Washington or met high-ranking US officials openly. This unusual and ideologically contradictory alliance was formulated with the approval of Tehran’s religious and political leadership. They endorsed the fact that in Iranian political and strategic decision-making process, strategic interests outweigh ideological commitments or religious principles and taboos.

http://www.researchsea.com/html/article.php/aid/993/cid/6?PHPSESSID=0f987fb38af332abab79864390a755c4

The smoothest regime-change scenario — a coup from within Saddam's own military ranks — is the least likely. At least six such coups have been attempted in the past decade, and all have failed miserably. With internal intelligence and security services at his disposal, Saddam has recently stepped up the pace of military purges, shifting around or simply executing any popular, effective officer who posed a potential threat.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,235395,00.html

 

This hits right on the point we're contesting:

What is the feeling of the Iraqis regarding their current situation of civil strife versus their past situation of oppression under Saddam? Do they yearn for the old days of stability, albeit under a heavy hand, or are they happy to be rid of a vicious dictator despite the chaos?
Andrew
Denver, CO

BOBBY GHOSH: That depends on who you ask — and where. The Kurds in the north and would likely say their lives have become better. In the rest of the country, it's fair to say that the majority of people are glad that Saddam was toppled, but that's not the same thing as saying their lives are better. In Baghdad and its environs, where much of the violence is concentrated, everyday life has got much, much worse. Of course, people appreciate that they now have many freedoms they didn't have under Saddam — but it's hard to enjoy those freedoms when life itself is under threat at all times. So naturally, some people are bound to look back at the Saddam era with some degree of nostalgia.

http://www.time.com/time/question/life_in_baghdad.html