GIVE IRAQ BACK TO SADDAM

This idea began as a joke on the Don Imus show, but the more I think about it the more sense it makes. All we do is tell him we are sorry about killing his sons, and point out that he would have had to kill them anyway. Then we tell him no gassing people, no invading other countries, otherwise run things the way he used to, and keep selling us cheap oil. Tell him if he doesnt we will come back. Then we rebuild that statue we tore town, and give Iraq back to him and get the hell out.

Great Idea! Let's give him the country back so it can be business as usual for him :






"Investigators have located nine trenches in Hatra containing hundreds of bodies believed to be Kurds killed during the repression of the 1980s. The skeletons of unborn babies and toddlers clutching toys are being unearthed, the investigators said."


Give it back to him so he can pick up right where he left off! :rolleyes:


Don Cardi

Saddam kills Iraqi civilians...

US Troops kill Iraqi civilians...

The poor sods are fucked either way.

Maybe we should give Iraq to someone who won't kill its civilians... that excludes the dictator Saddam and trigger-happy GI Joes.

UN?

Dr.-

Trigger Happy GI Joes, (another shot at America and it's military, but that seems to be your way lately) didn't go in there with any intention to mass murder 10's of thousands of people. Saddam INTENTIONLLY went out for the last 20 years and murdered 10's of thousands of people. SO don't put the GI Joes in the same category as Saddam.

We are at war in there and yes, unfortunately during a war people die, and I don't like it anymore than you do, but unfortunately that's what happens in a war.

Saddam was NOT at war when he blatently murdered thousands of babies and people in general.

Your comparison is an unfair one, and to be very frank with you, and ignorant one.


Don Cardi

Dr. is it safe to assume that you live in Iraq right now and are viewing with your own eyes the American soldiers walking up to innocent civilians and blowing their brains out?

Nothing wrong with taking shots at America if you disagree with American policies, IMO, but in this case TDWFL, I think you're a bit off base.

As DC points out, civilian casualties are an unfortunate result in war.

And while I'm against the war in Iraq, I don't believe that the deaths of Iraqi civilians are being caused deliberately by American soldiers.

Are there some isolated cases of American soldiers being "trigger happy"? Probably. But I doubt very much if that characterization applies to anything more than a very small minority.

I think a main problem with US troop involvement is the lack of soldiers who speak the language.

Yelling at a person in English and expecting that person to understand is ridiculous. Many times civilians have been shot because they didn't understand what was going on.

One of the biggest mistakes was disbanding the Iraqi army, not paying them and letting them keep their small arms. The other is paying $200 for people to turn in their AK’s, when they can buy them for $50. Those two things don’t make sense.

Didn't you once say that the only reason Bush went in there was for oil?

Now you want us to put Saddam back and make a deal for oil?


DS

A very good point from the last poster.

Its like that scene in Sam Mendes' JARHEAD, with the American troops trying to talk to that roaming group of civilians, where one advises another to not wave with their left hand "...its considered an insult, because they use it to wipe their asses with".

Ever killed a man, DC? Ever fought in a war? You can't say things like that until you've had the experience so can it until you do.

No-one who has had such experience is so flippant.

Ever killed a man, DC? Ever fought in a war? You can't say things like that until you've had the experience so can it until you do.

No-one who has had such experience is so flippant. [/b][/quote]First off how do you know if I've ever killed someone or not?

But that aside, both past history and common sense tell us that their are bound to be innocent casualties in a place where a war is being fought.

If anything, I think that one of the main problems in this war is that the United States and The GI Joes have been TOO careful not to attack innocents during this war. On many occassions the terrorists have fired upon us from within Mosques and Historical Buildings, and the U.S. Soldiers, who would have every right to bomb those buildings, have NOT fired back on those types of structures due to the respect that they have tried to show to the Iraqi civilians towards their places of worship and history. And this practice by American Soldiers has probably cost us the lives of many troops.

The Brave Soldiers have fallen victim to numerous roadside bombings, checkpoint bombings, etc.. You know why? Because rather than shoot first and ask questions later, they have been mindful enough to give those passing through the benefit of the doubt that they were innocent Iraqi civilians. And their mindfulness and worry about possibly killing Iraqi civilians in these kinds of scenerios has worked against them. Because on numerous occasions the people that they treated as innocent civilians turned out to be strapped with bombs and killed our troops. Imagine having to take those kinds of risk on a daily basis and make those kinds of split second decisions which could mean life or death?

For you to accuse MY country and it's military of intentionally killing innocent civilians on purpose shows me that you have absolutely no clue what you are saying and that you don't consider these things because if you did, you would not make these cowardly accusations and remarks against the troops.


Don Cardi

Yes,Saddam Hussein is a madman that killed thousands of his own people. Does 27-30,0000 civilians dead make it right?

If this war is against the regime of Saddam Hussein, not the Iraqi people, why are we still there?

The fallacy in that argument is that it assumes that we have the "right" to be there in the first place.

Bush gave us 2 reasons for entering Iraq:

1.) Get the WMDs outta there.
2.) Get Saddam outta there.

Saddam's out, but he lied about the WMDs. We'll never find them. We have no reason to stay there. We're more worried about rebuilding Baghdad than New Orleans.

The fallacy in that argument is that it assumes that we have the "right" to be there in the first place. [/b][/quote]Don't change the issue Plaw! Having the right to be there or not is a totally different issue. We are there so get over it. Now the soldiers have to fight a war.

Are you saying that a soldier does not have the right to defend himself and fire back at an enemy when he is being attacked?


Do you deny that choosing to fight a "politically correct" war in certain instances has not cost us the lives of our soldiers?


Don Cardi

Give me a break Saladbar. You know damn well that after we had taken down Saddam and his regime, if we had turned around and went home, you and the rest of your buddys here would be screaming and yelling that the United States left the Iraqi people in a mess without sticking around to help them clean it up.


Don Cardi

I love the fact that alot of people desire for a living under a dictature. Try it! Go to Syria and experience thos whole thing. Im sure You are going to enjoy it, dt :rolleyes:

The fallacy in that argument is that it assumes that we have the "right" to be there in the first place. [/b][/quote]Don't change the issue Plaw! Having the right to be there or not is a totally different issue. We are there so get over it. Now the soldiers have to fight a war.

Are you saying that a soldier does not have the right to defend himself and fire back at an enemy when he is being attacked?

Do you deny that choosing to fight a "politically correct" war in certain instances has not cost us the lives of our soldiers?


Don Cardi [/b][/quote]How about you save the "get over it" comments. They add nothing to the discussion.

Anyway, I'm not changing the issue at all.

The issue is "Do our soldiers have the right to bomb buildings to defend themselves?"

Your argument that they do is fallacious because it is based on a fallacy: The fallacy being the assumption that we have the right to be in Iraq the first place. Period.

The two issues are intertwined. You cannot separate one from the other by saying what we do now is OK because we're there already, so get over it.

We have no right to be there in the first place, IMO, so therefore we have no right to be killing Iraqis, bombing buildings, etc.

IMO, you cannot justify subsequent actions as being correct when the original action that percipitated them was wrong.

That's like saying if an armed robber enters a grocery store with the intention of robbing it, and the storekeeper pulls out a gun, the robber has the right to shoot the storekeeper to defend himself.

Of course he should shoot the storekeeper. He has to defend himself. He's certainly not about to let the storekeeper shoot him. I would, you would, we'd have to defend ourselves too (Yeah, I know you're gonna argue that we're not criminals, but some would argue that President Bush is for invading Iraq), but the bottom line is that the situation never should have occurred because the armed robber never should have been there to rob the store in the first place.

Now, should our soldiers have the right to defend themselves?

Our soldiers should not be there in the first place. They should not be in the position of having to defend themselves. But since they are there, then yes, they should defend themselves.

What else can they do. I certainly don't expect them not to.

A politically correct war?

If trying to minimize casualties among innocent civilians means that we are fighting a politically correct war, then so be it.

Are the lives of our soldiers more important than the lives of innocent Iraqi civilians? And if so, why?

OK....I'll admit it. I'd rather see a dead innocent Iraqi civilian than a dead American soldier, but that's because I'm an American.

That doesn't really justify it in the big picture, does it?

You believe in God. Would God value the life of an American soldier over that of an innocent Iraqi civilian? I'd think not.

Anyway, none of this changes my original point:

That your argument about soldiers having the right to defend themselves is based on a fallacy.

Well obviously we will differ on if my arguement is based on a fallacy or not.

You don't believe that we should be there in the forst place, so it is a fallacy in your view.

I on the other hand supported the war from the begining, so in my view my arguement is not based on a fallacy.

Therefore, based on my view, I believe that the soldiers have every right to bomb ANY facility that they are fired upon from. So because of our different opinions from the onset of this war, it is now almost impossible for us to agree on this issue itself.


And I don't trivialize the loss of any life, so please don't even imply that or accuse me of that. I think that you know me much better than that!

As for your God question, well of course from a religious point of view, God views every life the same. But we are not God.

I as a human being have no problem when our military wipes out a terrorist group. Their lives are worthless in my eyes.


Don Cardi

Well, if you think we have the "right" to be in Iraq, then your argument, in your opinion, is not based on a fallacy, although I really can't understand how anyone can say we have the "right" to be there.

That said, I have no problem with wiping out terrorists either.

But that wasn't the issue. The question was one of the political correctness of the war, your implication being that we are fighting a politically correct war in order to minimize the loss of innocent civilian life, am I correct?

I mean, why else would we fight a war that was "politically correct?"

And my response was "If that's the case, so be it. Although I'd prefer to see a dead innocent Iraqi civilian than a dead American soldier, in the big picture I really can't justify that feeling and I know that it's wrong.".

Politically correct in the sense that our troops were given STRICT orders NOT to fire back at Mosques or Historic Buildings. And that order, coming down from the politicians in Washington, IMO, renders a soldier impotent in that if a terrorist is using a Mosque as a war room and fires upon our soldiers from that Mosque, our soldiers are not allowed to fire back on that terrorist because he is in the Mosque. And because of this many of our soldiers have lost thier lives. If memory serves me correctly, several months onto this war Zarquawi was in a Mosque that was firing upon our troops. Our soldiers had strict orders not to bomb that Mosque. Had they been allowed to fight a war the way that the generals saw fit, it is very possible that Zarquwi would be dead, and many troops would still be alive. Speculation? yes, but a strong possibility.

The obvious reason for Washington to give an order like that is because the government does not want to look like bad guys to the middle eastern people. They still want to keep some kind of Political relations in tact. They were afraid of being accused of trying to destroy the holy places. And this falls under being politically correct with the middle eastern nations and the Muslim religion.

IMO you just cannot fight a war that way. As I said I was all for going into Iraq for many reasons, and I still believe that had Saddam been left in power, that he would have eventually taken some kind of action gainst our nation and American interests, fully knowing that Al Qaeda and company had already succeeded in attacking our Nation and other American interests. But that's not my point.

My point is that even though I was for going into Iraq, it doesn't mean that I agree with the way things are being done or some of the decisions that have been made by our Political leaders in Washington.

The political leaders, including our President, have put our soldiers lives at higher risk and have probably cost lives because of their inserting their politicaly motivated decisions into the strategy of fighting the war.

It is my opinion that Presidents and Senators should run the country and make decisions that effect the well being and protection of our Nation and it's people. And once the President and the Senate decides that we must go to war, for whatever reason, then they must step back and let the GENERALS run the war the way they see fit. They've done their jobs and now it's time to let the Generals, who are trained in warfare, do theirs.

I would hope that an army goes to war with the intention of winning it. And when politicians start worrying about offending people and keeping places of worship in tact, places of worship that are used as hiding places and strongholds for our enemies, those kinds of decisions make it very very hard to win that war.

But again, the original intent of this and the other point that I made way above was to point out to The Dr. Who's Anti-American that our American troops were trying thier best NOT to kill innocents at places like check points. Their giving the benefit of the doubt in those situations has probably cost us many many lives.

His cliams that American Soldiers were intentionally going in there to kill innocents, calling them trigger happy GI Joes, is just plain outrageous! It's the same exact rhetoric that the terrorists have been feeding the muslim people in that region of the world.


Don Cardi

America is a very hated country around the world, and there are some Anti-Americans on this board. It shouldn't come as a surprise. Even the stupid comments that American Soldiers are going out and murdering Iraqi civillians on purpose.

Give me a break Saladbar. You know damn well that after we had taken down Saddam and his regime, if we had turned around and went home, you and the rest of your buddys here would be screaming and yelling that the United States left the Iraqi people in a mess without sticking around to help them clean it up.
[/b][/quote]Don't get all grumpy.

You have no idea what I would have said. I am not predictable that way.

Who do you mean by that? I just want to know if you count me in...

I KNEW you were gonna say that! :p

I don't think that American troops are killing Iraqi civilians on purpose.

I do think that certain people, of Don Cardi and Don Andrew's ilk, do not really care very much about the effect of American occupation of Iraq on Iraqis.

I do think that American troops are killing Iraqi civilians and their own allies through being trigger-happy and not very intelligent.

They are mostly hot-blooded young men recruited from deprived backgrounds with frustrated ambitions and lots of anger. It's a recipe for disaster that the troops are not responible for but are very much a part of.

Did anyone catch that article in Newsweek a couple weeks ago about how its unsafe for people to date now? How religious groups are attacking young couples?

Really, is Iraq a safer, better, more productive place as a result of the invasion, or is it falling apart?

The entire world has been under the thumb of oppression at some point. The USSR was no better off than Russia under the Tsars. Many Muslim nations have been under a kind religious rule for centuries. Trying to break a system suddenly will never work.

Gradual change is always needed.

The argument raging here is a matter of perspective. People Americans view as "terrorists" view Americans as "evil." Instead of bombing the hell out of a nation, why not try and talk it out? Why result to acting like children over some issue? Now instead of plastic swords and sticks, people are using guns and incendiary bombs.

The British bombed a city using incendiaries. They didn’t break any international laws because of a technicality in the chemical composition in the bombs. They didn’t use napalm, but something damn close. Oh well, I guess that’s justified too in a narrow minded world.

Amen

Just wondering, (perhaps if I lived in the U.S or had more fixed views about this war I could answer this myself, but however) what did Saddam ever do to the U.S directly? Why do you hate HIM so much?

Just asking...

You're right. And I apologize to you for pre-conceiving about something that you might say.


Don Cardi

If you only knew.


Don Cardi

That's actually a great question. I'm curious to know what some of the people on here supporting the war have to say to that. They can't possibly say that we attacked Iraq because Saddam committed genocide. If so, than why aren't their millions of people rooting Bush to go into Sudan? The genocide in Sudan was and still is far greater than any genocide Saddam was ever part of.

If you only knew. [/b][/quote]Enlighten us.

If I'm not mistaken, Aziatic is the only person here who knows firsthand what he's talking about, and yet everyone passed over his post to continue their own arguments based on second/third/fourth-hand information. I find it interesting how often his nationality is overlooked in these discussions.

Over in the other thread, the entire subject of which was the Iraqi people's opinion and views on the war, someone refuted him when he gave his input. I thought his input would be the most topic-appropriate? Anyone else find this a little ridiculous?

He lives in Germany, not Iraq. He's not in Iraq right now.

Yes Aziatic is probably the only Iraqi I know on this board. And I agree with you that he must be having a lot of knowledge on the situation. But again he is an individual with his own views. For example, having mostly american members here is not a guarantee of all of them agreeing on something. And we know they don't, considering all these political threads. Aziatic is pro war as I gather from his posts. I bet that there would be a lot of anti war iraqis as well.

Yes Zia, you are 100% correct. He's experienced a Saddam run Iraq firsthand, and if memory serves me correctly he and his family had to flee.( Please correct me Aziatic if i've mixed up what you once shared with me).

Yet, those who are safe in their own homes over here have refuted what Aziatic shares with us about the whole Iraq situation.

I for one feel that his feelings about this whole situation in Iraq are the most Valid ones out of all of these posts. He's lived it first hand, so he knows better than any of us.


Don Cardi

But you, Pat, Zia, DS and myself have NEVER experienced the kind of life that Aziatic did. So who are we to debate his views on what is going on in a country where he had lived under Saddam? It is obvious that his life under a dictatorship was a horrible one. And he feels that his homeland will eventually be a better place then it once was. So who the hell are any of us to dispute Aziatic on this issue?


Don Cardi

So you think his views should go uncriticized just because he used to live in Iraq?

I think his views are more valid, factual, and on the money because he, unlike you and I, lived in the turmoil of a dictatorship. You and I haven't, so you and I cannot really tell him that he is wrong about something that he experienced and we didn't.

You see Pat, as you grow older in life and start to experience certain things, you will realize that not everything is as it once seemed before you've experienced it. Then your views change, and you will have a much better understanding of a situation. Then you will realize that the next person who has not experienced what you have cannot really give as fair an assesment as you now could because of your experience. You'll understand someday.


Don Cardi

Now I agree with this statement, though many people blew it out of context. Sure, US troops kill civilians, but TDWFL never said anything about doing it on purpose. Truth be told, US troops are not only killing Iraqi civilians, but also being killed by them. Carbombs and grenades, and shit like that go off every day leaving more and more soldiers dead. If I were in that situation, I'd be trigger happy too. I'm finding many similiarities between Iraq and Vietnam when it comes to the people in general. We're going over there to fight, but in some instances, we don't know who we're fighting. Sure, we're against the terrorists, but they're not wearing a name tag.

Don Cardi:
Saddam INTENTIONLLY went out for the last 20 years and murdered 10's of thousands of people. SO don't put the GI Joes in the same category as Saddam.

And though I agree with the doc's statement, I also believe DC has made a good point. The soldiers should not be compared to Saddam. There is a moral difference. Saddam intentionally gased his people. Our soldiers are accidently shooting innocent civilians. The military is not an easy career. In this situation, you should reach a consensus for your comments, because you both have a valid point.

We are at war in there and yes, unfortunately during a war people die, and I don't like it anymore than you do, but unfortunately that's what happens in a war.

Now this is what makes me angry amongst many war supporters (most of them are "conservative", until it comes to fucking fighting). They use this "war is expensive" shit to justify why we should go to war. Like the average consumer, they basically claim, "sense it costs more, it must be worth it". For once, why can't we just sit back and listen to how somebody else feels. Some of these European countries we've easily pissed off. Maybe we'd have less war if we had more support.

You are right. I will never argue with him over any of the facts that he presents here about iraq. But sometimes it is opinions. But still I don't argue on his opinions, because I guess his opinions may be based on facts that I don't fully know about. However he is not the only source of information we have, right? Suppose I were to gather how Americans feel about a given subject, how do I go about it? I know yourself and Pat have lived in America for many many years. But obviously you differ on a lot of topics. Suppose, only one of you (DC OR Pat) were a member of this board and I were to find out how Americans feel about the war. If I were to take that one view on face value, I will have gathered a very one-sided picture of the situation. Obviously I would have missed the divide of opinions that exists in America about the war. So what I am saying is this - I don't dispute any of what Aziatic says or feels. But I also don't preclude the possibility of his his opinion not being shared by the Iraqi majority. Do I know what the majority feels? NO I don't claim that. However I am definitely interested to know. Through Aziatic, media or whoever.

DC you are allowing yourself to be drawn into a discussion about the conduct of our military in Iraq, which, IMHO has, for the most part been about as good as it gets in a war. Abu Grahib was NOT IMHO an isolated incident cause by a few rotten apples, but the extension of a policy from the top down allowing for torture. The problems our troops have is that this war is being managed with complete incompetence. They sent too few troops in, they have too few there now, they are not properly armed, they do not have proper protection, and they have been given ridiculous orders. At the beginning of the war you will recall that the Iraqis looted all the ministries EXCEPT the oil ministry, which we guarded (hmm wonder why). We literally tore apart what little infrastructure they had left, and we alienated the Sunnis who were used to running things. The problem now is we need to find a way out, and what is most likely to happen is that we are going to pull back to Kuwait and Jordan, and then start an air war against the insurgency (which btw is about 89-90% indigenous, not foregin al queada as the administration would have us believe...in fact even people who supported us there at the beginning have turned on us).

The last war of choice we fought was when we invaded Cambodia and widened the war in Indochina. That blunder was calculated to get rid of a brutal corrupt dictator named King Sihanouk (sp) . Well, you know how that turned out. When we left there was no infrasytructure left and the king was replaced by Pol Pot who was the most murderous leader of a country since Hitler.

If Iraq devolves into a civil war, which is more likely than not, whoever winds up taking it over is going to make Saddam Hussein look like Barney Frank.

What the dead enders supporting the US Administration have to understand is this was was a complete mistake from the get go. It was ill conceived and poooly planned and it had no exit strategy.

Agreed Saddam was a bad guy who gassed Kurds, killed and tortured people and all the rest. Do you think Musharef in Pakistan is not doing the same thing? How about the Chinese? If our mission is to rid the world of bad dictators, we have a lot worse to deal with than Saddam.
Yes, he was a bad guy, but what will succeed him will be worse.

I say turn it back over to him.

In the Democratic Republic of Congo, there was a war from 1997 until 2004, in which there was en genocide of 4,000,000 people. The standard of living is below zero. Economy just doesn't exist there. There is aids, extreme poverty, extreme violence, mass rapings, people die of simple to solve diseases like diarrea and fever.

Why didn't the USA went to solve that problem, instead of going to Iraq, where, with all disrespect for Saddam, people weren't dying at a rate of 3000 a day, for 10 years long. Where people weren't dying from extreme hunger and stupid diseases...
Maybe because presidents aren't interested in neutral countries of countries without oil?

????
I once read that, and I'm not sure about the exact numbers, that to equip 1 soldier, takes somewhere around 25,000$. More arming will become impayable...

I thought that you support the troops but you dont support the war? How is that supporting the troops then?


DS

I thought that you support the troops but you dont support the war? How is that supporting the troops then?


DS [/b][/quote]Nothing confusing about it DS. Supporting the troops means not making them do three to five tours of duty, putting them in the middle of a chaotic situation like a bunch of sitting ducks, and getting them the hell out of a place where they never should have been sent in the first place.
The troops are now in harms way because George Bush is too proud to admit he made a mistake. As a man of God (allegedly) Bush ought to know that Pride is the deadliest of sins.

I can't believe someone would actually want to destroy any hopes of Iraqi democracy and instead advocate leaving the country in the hands of dictator who would undoubtedly unleash a bloodbath once he regained power.

Would you have also liked to turn Germany over to the Nazis after World War II? After all, Germany was in shambles after the war and faced an uncertain future. Nazi rule would have provided stability, right?

It's really very disturbing to hear you proclaim from your computer chair that Iraq would be better off in the hands of a genocidal maniac while millions of Iraqis and Americans risk their lives every day in the hope of establishing a democracy.

Please do not misrepresent what I am saying. My point is that we are going to leave Iraq off in worse condition than we found it because the war is being run by total incompetents. It is the same scenario as Cambodia. One brutal dictator was replaced by another one who was worse -- Pol Pot. BTW in Germany and Japan after WWII the US and allies worked closely with people affiliated with the enemy governments to make sure the infrastructures (to the extent they existed) could be run. In Iraq we had a policy that said anyone who was a member of the Baath party could not participate. This was pure idiocy. Now we are asking them to come back in.

I thought that you support the troops but you dont support the war? How is that supporting the troops then?


DS [/b][/quote]So, if I'm against the war, I don't support the troops?

How would that work?

Does it mean I want to see them all killed? Does it mean I want to see them ill-equipped, ill-fed, underpaid, and abused by their leaders?

Or, let me put it another way:

You define "Support The Troops" for me, and I'll tell you weather or not I support them.

Or define for me what "Not Supporting The Troops" means.

I support them. They're there. IMO, the shouldn't be there, but there is little I can do about it except on Election Day.

I want them out of there as quickly as possible. I think that the war is wrong, and it will eventually prove that our soldiers died for nothing.

But they are there. That's a fact. So while they are there, I support them.

I think that they should have the very best equipment, food, clothing, and arms, and, as DT said above, if I may paraphrase a bit, "Supporting the troops means that I don't want to see them do three to five tours of duty, be put in the middle of a chaotic situation like a bunch of sitting ducks, and getting them the hell out of a place where they never should have been sent to in the first place."

Germany already had had a democracy before Hitler. It was called the Weimar Republic. So the people knew what it was.
But in Iraq, there was never democracy. And it won't just come when you clean up one dictator, because they're not used to democracy.
Democracy is a gradual proces, and the iniatives eventually have to come from the population, and they have to have the will to do away with people who are against democracy.

Germany already had had a democracy before Hitler. It was called the Weimar Republic. So the people knew what it was.
But in Iraq, there was never democracy. And it won't just come when you clean up one dictator, because they're not used to democracy.
Democracy is a gradual proces, and the iniatives eventually have to come from the population, and they have to have the will to do away with people who are against democracy. [/QB][/quote]Japan never had a democracy, but we completely and unabashedly occupied it. That cant happen in Iraq.

Thanks Letizia , I followed most of the subjects concerning Iraq and even if there posts which dont belong directly to the subject I like to read how people view this war. But as you mentioned, I found it abit weird that there was like one reply to my post. I just want to express how MOST people of my country felt and still feel about the war.

Thats right, I live in Germany but I lived there for 12 years under Saddam and even if Ive been here in Germany the last 9 years, Ive been in Iraq atleast 5 times since then and my father is atleast 3 times A YEAR in Iraq since he is active in politics so I should know how the situation there is, dont you think?

I get your point svsg and you are of course right, it is my OPINION, but I also implied that most people feel just like me because thats a fact and not because I want to tell you my opionion is right, its because I want to tell you how IRAQIS and NOT ONLY how I feel. There are some anti-war Iraqis, but I can assure you they are really a minority. Nearly all of them worked directly under Saddam and were Sunites and some smaller terrorist groups which view this whole think as a holy war (so that is no national question anymore). I think the high percentage of people who participated at the elections (even at those security conditions) underline that fact.

Appreciate it very much DC, thank You. Again, I didnt say that one is wrong in their opionions when talking about they feel about this whole war (even if I disagree with alot) but I want to let you all know how most IRAQIS feel, what the ther thread was about anyway.

Yes it was a horrible life, I was even happy to live for "only" 12 years under such a regime, already experiencing 2 direct wars (Iran, Kuwait) and one indirectly (the liberation war 2003) besides all the everyday struggle and war between Saddam and us. What about the poeple who were born since the first day of Saddams regime, like my parents and millions of other Iraqis...

We are discussing here. You can critizise whoever and whatever you (whoever) want as long as they are not ignorant and just stupid statements like the title of this thread.

We never had a true democracy in Iraq and alot of people there didnt live a life under freedom like Europe and the US and other countries have the privilege to live in but we know what FREEDOM is. And with freedom, democracy will be introduced. And we arlready are free since more than 2 years and have the right to elect. It might be something usual to some of you guys here that you forget to appreciate it but please dont come with comments like "it was better under Saddam" and that this thing will NEVER work. We ARE free. We HAVE THE RIGHT to elect, say whatever we want (Over 160 daily newspapers in bagdad alone!!!).
The security, in few cities anyways IS NOT there but we, with the help of the allies are working on it and are making process. Unfortuantely, outside of Iraq, people only get a view of the terrible things that are going on there, which are facts (most of them anyways) but do not have any idea about the positive things. And lets not forget that murder was habitual under Saddam, so its nothing new that alot of people are getting killed.

There are elections in about 2 Weeks and there will be most likely (hopefully) a regime change over tehre since Dschafaari isnt a good man IMO and alot of Shiites who voted for him are insatisfied with his actions and if we believe most of the statistocs he has NO CHANCE to win again (his party). There will be most likely a liberal party(not "liberal" as most of people interpret it in the US) but a party which doesnt include religion in its program. Then, the connections to the regime of Iran (which is responsible for alot of bad processes in the US) will become "thin".
It is and will be a LONG process of democratization in my country and the war against terror is difficult but the right will win and we will succeed achieving our goals, and those of each human being, living under a democratic system which assures everyone his rights.

Thanks for reading,
Aziatic

Great post Mr. Baggins, thats exactly my point. I find alot of paralels between "the third reich" and "iraq under saddam" and try to underline my view of this war with the experience with Hiter and history.

Yes Germany had a democracy with the Weimarer Republic. But as I posted before, just because a nation didnt experience democracy doesnt mean it doesnt want to be lieberated and doesnt "get used" to live free.
It took 4 years in Germany to have a constituion, we had it shortly after the war. Now Im not saying that the constitution is what its all about, but Im saying even in countries where there was a democracy before, it is a hard and long process because regimes (Hitler, Saddam) destroyed most of the things, even physical aspects of human beings, that have to be "rebuild".
Another example, Germany also was seperated for 30 years! And TODAY (60 years after Hitler is gone) you still find some people who symphathize with Hitler, which are a minority of course, but I dont go on and say "Germans are fascist/rassist and dont want democracy but their old regime", and its similar with Iraqis. My point is, dont view those terrorist attacks/suicide bombers etc. as a "response" of the Iraqis, but as a small minority, hell, more than 90 percent of those terrorists (!!!) are foreigners anyway.

:D


Don Cardi

:D


Don Cardi [/b][/quote]Correction: You can critizise whoever and whatever you (whoever) want as long as they are not ignorant and just stupid statements like the title of this thread.

Aziatic, I posted that smile because I agreed with your statement about the title of this thread.

As a matter of fact just the thought of giving Iraq back to Saddam makes me want to .

Yes, let's just forget about all of the Soldier's lives that were lost fighting in this war, the Soldier's lives that were affected physically and the the lives of those Iraqi's who died because they believed in fighting for freedom. Let's just give it right back to Saddam and the hell with those lives. :rolleyes:

Not only would giving Iraq back to Saddam be a dishonor to the families of those who died and to the memory of those soldiers in general,it basically would be telling the Iraqi people Fuck you.

A ridiculous idea. Outrageous.


Don Cardi

I think there's nothing more to add to your post DC, agreed!

I agree with everyting you say DC and Aziatic, but if there isn't a solution for what will happen after the dictator, then removing him doesn't make much sense. From what I hear (not necessary how it really does happen, but from what I hear, ) things aren't much better today than they were under Saddam.

Well I'm sure that things are in no way peachy creamy over there, but no one will ever convince me that things aren't better than when Saddam ruled that place.


Don Cardi

Whoa! Hold on a second! DC, is your justification for continuing the war based on the fact people have died? The US better stay otherwise those soldiers died in vain?

That's bull and you know it. That whole reason is flawed because more die everyday, so the US has to stay in to honor them too huh?

Why should others suffer to honor the dead? So they can die too and get honored by another soldier who'll get is ass blown off?

Honoring dead soldiers is no reason to continue a war. I suppose if 1/2 the army died there you'd support sending more to honor them too?

It's funny how we argue about how we support the troops and not the war, or the war and not the troops, or whatever the case may be. Truth be told, it doesn't matter, because until you use action to back your words, who gives a rat's ass if you claim to support the troops. It's funny to listen to my father, who is a troop, and next summer will retire after 20 years in the military (both Army and AF). You see so many magnets on the backs of cars with a ribbon saying "support our troops", so he'll answer, "I do support the troops, I pay taxes". Don't pay taxes? Don't support the troops. If we haven't learned anything else in this last election, it is that you can fight in a war, you can be a troop, you can claim to support the troops with a good amount of credibility, but still be considered someone who doesn't. It doesn't matter what you say, it matters what you do.

In my book, someone who supports the troops is someone who can keep them occupied, but not doing so carelessly or needlessly. Many times, we'll decide to go into some country, tell them how to run things, realize we fucked up, and leave. We've done that at least twice now.

Going into Afghanistan to capture Osama Bin Laden: that is a worth while time. You're keeping the soldiers busy, and you're not doing so carelessly. Anyway, if you find no place to send them to, keep them home. They could possibly have a family.

They were for Saddam.

Someone broke into ALL his homes, killed his two sons and many of his closest friends, stole all his money and also used all his personal items as they went around the city and made fun of him.

And I suppose that you misread my post!

Of course I wouldn't base a decision to continue on in a war solely for the purpose of remembering that people have died! AND I DIDN'T!!!!!! That's twisting my words Johnny. Show me where I said that!!!!!

I said that to HAND the country back over to Saddam at this point would be a dishonor to all those soldiers who died. I never said that we should continue war because soldiers had already died.

I didn't say anything about our bringing the troops home being a dishonor to those wh've died.

Go Back and read what I wrote and in the context of how I wrote it.


Don Cardi

OK, just checking