Disgusting.

madmallard · Post by **madmallard** » Sat Sep 13, 2003 1:03 pm

then lets compare it to something -slightly more relevant.

how about germany and japan? those were countries that surrendered. however, so theres one difference.

so lets look at their timetables. for referrence.

Also. . .Iraq is nowhere near as industrialised as Japan and Germany even back in the 40s. So there isn't much infrastructure to begin with compared to them as well.

And yes. when the dominant element in the country is 'kill everyone who isn't muslim enough, and kill all americans and zionists everywhere, a controlled occupation is the foundation for wiping out terrorists and helping the people fight for themselves. The problem with your anaolgy was the Baathist element didn't keep them under control, they were allowed to run free and do what they want, so how can you call that control? THe baath party wasn't the least bit interested in infrastructure of any kind beyond their own eleetist beuracracy.

fyrtenheimer · Post by **fyrtenheimer** » Sat Sep 13, 2003 1:15 pm

Tab. wrote:Hey george bush, way to go.

The problem is we CAN'T pull out now. Like ohmybelldandy and her latest boytoy catch, if we suddenly realize we're probably going to get gonorrhea by sticking our soldier where he dosen't belong and pull out, she's going to find someone else - a terrorist someone else, to finish her up for the night. While the terrorists may deserve gonorrhea, we certainly don't need more baby terrorists around.
COMPRENDE?

LO COMPRENDO

Org Profile · Post by **Otohiko** » Sat Sep 13, 2003 1:16 pm

However, I do assure you that Iraq was in a general state of good order at least for a time under Baathist rule, at least in contrast to what's going on now. At the very least, I can say that I've known a person who worked in Iraq for several years in the later 70's, and he had nothing but positive impressions of life there (although, undoubtedly, there were aspects of life that foreigners were ignorant to).

The difference between this and WWII reconstruction of Japan and Germany is that, in those cases, the entire nations were actively involved in the war, and their defeats were those of entire populations and of their respective ideologies. Here, the war was primarily aimed at the Baath party. I don't disagree that Islam was not destroyed under Baath rule as a force in the country, but it was kept at bay by a larger power.

So now, rather than a population that's been defeated entirely and left without hope for their cause, you have a population which has lost the controlling influence of the Baath party, and has elements in it which have actually been empowered by the war.

This is the main problem, unlike Japan or Germany, which had no hope for their own way, there are elements in Iraq that do, and rightly so. Suppressing these elements is gonna be hell for the Americans. Getting them to talk and agree on something - I'd like to see that. But, so far, that's been becoming less and less likely.

So, the choice, realistically, is suppress or pull out. And, if they choose to suppress, they'll either have to suppress for long enough to destroy hostile elements, or get another force in Iraq to suppress for them. Given how divided the population is, this substitute force is bound to be, to some extent, authoritarian and undemocratic. Keeping American control there is even more so. Question: what's the difference between that and Baath?

madmallard · Post by **madmallard** » Sat Sep 13, 2003 1:51 pm

Otohiko wrote:However, I do assure you that Iraq was in a general state of good order at least for a time under Baathist rule, at least in contrast to what's going on now. At the very least, I can say that I've known a person who worked in Iraq for several years in the later 70's, and he had nothing but positive impressions of life there (although, undoubtedly, there were aspects of life that foreigners were ignorant to).

Like people being drug away by the military, Or saddam's psycho kids stealing women off the alter, raping them and executing their husbands. Or young men's families disappearing and being told to join the army if he knows whats good for them. Or the torture, starvation. I'm sorry, your second hand information from someone who 'lived there' is not adding up to the hard facts about human rights we've known about the country for decades.

Wether or not either party, US or Baath, keeps order is irrellevant. America is trying to help them keep their own order by rebuilding from the ground up. The Baath was the minority, and they ruled the majority in a brutal way.

The difference between this and WWII reconstruction of Japan and Germany is that, in those cases, the entire nations were actively involved in the war, and their defeats were those of entire populations and of their respective ideologies. Here, the war was primarily aimed at the Baath party.

Granted. However, we didn't actively attack the whole nation, we attacked major cities where Baath governed from.

I don't disagree that Islam was not destroyed under Baath rule as a force in the country, but it was kept at bay by a larger power.

Baath -perverted- Islam in the name of their selfish cause. Islam is not the enemy. Religious extremists and militants are.

This is the main problem, unlike Japan or Germany, which had no hope for their own way, there are elements in Iraq that do, and rightly so. Suppressing these elements is gonna be hell for the Americans. Getting them to talk and agree on something - I'd like to see that. But, so far, that's been becoming less and less likely.

I dont see that. One because its too damn soon to draw conclusion like that.

So, the choice, realistically, is suppress or pull out. And, if they choose to suppress, they'll either have to suppress for long enough to destroy hostile elements, or get another force in Iraq to suppress for them. Given how divided the population is, this substitute force is bound to be, to some extent, authoritarian and undemocratic. Keeping American control there is even more so. Question: what's the difference between that and Baath?

Slaughter?

I can't believe you actually compare American/british force occupation to a Baath Party regime rule. But hey, if you believe they're one in the same, and Iraq was so good before we got there, pack your bags and leave North America.

Org Profile · Post by **Otohiko** » Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:13 pm

1) I'm not pro-Baathist.

2) On the other hand, what I've read of mass slaughter etc. on the scale you're implying, was generally from American/British/Anti-Baathist Iraqi sources. These are biased, involved parties which have little factual credibility.

On the other hand, there is plenty of both independent and first-hand evidence (how is my evidence second-hand? It's an interview with an independent primary source, a Russian engineer who worked in the Soviet oil industry and was sent to Iraq in the 1970's on a contract to work on pipelines. This, factually, is primary evidence. Were this not backed up by other hard facts, it would not be credible, but that's not the case). For instance, take a look at even the single first paragraph of text here:

Swiss Humanitarian Report wrote:http://www.sdc.admin.ch/ressources/deza ... _e_332.pdf

It's a hard fact that I've read in mass amount of sources, from Canadian textbooks, to American websites, to European magaizines, etc., etc. etc.
Iraq was, technically, a first-world state between the mid-1970's and mid-1980's. Disregarding reports of human rights violations isn't right, but taking them to an unrealistic extent, or ignoring the evidence that the life expectancy, healthcare quality and living standards were high during that time is very, very indicative of the general American population's gullibility when it comes to propaganda. Again, I'm not saying any of this without factual basis. Try as you might, you can't prove that a country which went from a third-world colony to a first-world socialist-authoritarian state to sub-third-world colony is, in fact, better under the present situation than it ever was is simply not feasible. It's not proveable by any means.

3) I fail to see the slaughter difference. Go back to the first post of this thread and tell me that what is written in the linked articles cannot be described as a slaughter. What's more, prove to me that the massive loss of life as a result of the American-led war and the humanitarian disaster that followed is anything except a slaughter. It's not a difference.
Yes, I am comparing the American regime in Iraq to the Baathist rule. I'm not comparing it domestically, I'm comparing the way it behaves in Iraq to the above-mentioned Baath. Domestically, it is a different regime. Domestically, it has a responsibility to voters, workers, and other elements which need to be in consent with the government's action. On foreign ground, this is not present. I assure you that noone but independent observers on the ground are capable of telling the real picture.

4) I'm not in North America by choice. On the other hand, Jean Chretien very politely declined offers to support American action, so my state is not involved in this and don't even start drawing Canada into this. It's as relevant to this case as Swaziland or Botswana.

However, I'm not a true part of North American culture as it is. I'm a European at heart, a cosmopolitan kind of European both culturally and genetically. Were I given an opportunity, I would gladly leave the continent to never return; to work in both Europe and Asia and travel between states where I hold enough rights to be safe and enough freedom to be politically independent. At present, this is not feasible financially nor otherwise. Within 3 years, this situation will change, and yes, I intend to leave the continent and its' culture for a prolonged period.

Right now, I have a commitment to this culture, a commitment to liberal democratic ideals, and commitments to other institutions within this state. One of the responsibilities that goes with these commitments is stating my views and criticisms should I believe the society is heading in the wrong directions. Once these commitments run out, I'll be more than glad to pack my bags.

**

Christ, I'm in politics again. I'm sorry ladies and G's, I'll have to put that in my location again now to remind me. Hopefully, my standpoint is clear enough by now to warrant my abscense from future arguments...

madmallard · Post by **madmallard** » Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:40 pm

Otohiko wrote:1) I'm not pro-Baathist.

2) On the other hand, what I've read of mass slaughter etc. on the scale you're implying, was generally from American/British/Anti-Baathist Iraqi sources. These are biased, involved parties which have little factual credibility.

okay, what about the rest of the worlds resources? France? phew, harldy consider that an unbiased view considering we found their weapons in the country, or Russia whining over its lost oil contracts whom we also found weapons.

If you're going to make the arguement that information we provide has questionable credibility, you must give 2 points of reference: 1: how it is dis-creditable by what evidence, and then provide a "creditable" source for comparison.

Disputing news sources with a second hand accounting of my friend's stay in Iraq 20 years ago does neither of these.

Disregarding reports of human rights violations isn't right, but taking them to an unrealistic extent, or ignoring the evidence that the life expectancy, healthcare quality and living standards were high during that time is very, very indicative of the general American population's gullibility when it comes to propaganda. Again, I'm not saying any of this without factual basis. Try as you might, you can't prove that a country which went from a third-world colony to a first-world socialist-authoritarian state to sub-third-world colony is, in fact, better under the present situation than it ever was is simply not feasible.

Then give me some real textbooks citing information about the Baath party's rule, expecially during that whole bankrupting conflict with Iran. Because of a chain of events the country DID become eve more poverty stricken, and corrupt, and bankrupt and whatever other criteria you call 3rd world conditions. It is only 'technically' not conisdered one because of its oil revenue doesn't waulify it. Its status as a colony was the same up until now because of coups, infighting, and general barbarism in the region.

Socialist authoritarian... they were pretty crappy socialists at that considering what little infrastructure there was/is.

3) I fail to see the slaughter difference. Go back to the first post of this thread and tell me that what is written in the linked articles cannot be described as a slaughter. What's more, prove to me that the massive loss of life as a result of the American-led war and the humanitarian disaster that followed is anything except a slaughter. It's not a difference.

okay, just to be clear. You equate a military action in defense of troops and the general public of where they are at, no matter that we dont have the details of this incident you've linked, to the same as the pre-existing military's tendancy to beat up anyone the felt like, throw children in dungeons, rape women, and execute prisoners with firearms?

I'm sorry, your reasoning just lost its credibility to me. . .

Yes, I am comparing the American regime in Iraq to the Baathist rule. I'm not comparing it domestically, I'm comparing the way it behaves in Iraq to the above-mentioned Baath. Domestically, it is a different regime. Domestically, it has a responsibility to voters, workers, and other elements which need to be in consent with the government's action. On foreign ground, this is not present. I assure you that noone but independent observers on the ground are capable of telling the real picture.

but you're pretty quick to devalue any of those on ground observers who don't have anything negative to say as biased, bought out, or just plain bad news sources. Being a little hypocritcal arent we?

4) I'm not in North America by choice. On the other hand, Jean Chretien very politely declined offers to support American action, so my state is not involved in this and don't even start drawing Canada into this. It's as relevant to this case as Swaziland or Botswana.

you opened your mouth on a public forum.

However, I'm not a true part of North American culture as it is. I'm a European at heart, a cosmopolitan kind of European both culturally and genetically. Were I given an opportunity, I would gladly leave the continent to never return; to work in both Europe and Asia and travel between states where I hold enough rights to be safe and enough freedom to be politically independent. At present, this is not feasible financially nor otherwise. Within 3 years, this situation will change, and yes, I intend to leave the continent and its' culture for a prolonged period.

Enjoy living in countries that have cameras on every street corner and special police who change the newspaper and tv broadcasts to suit them.

Right now, I have a commitment to this culture, a commitment to liberal democratic ideals, and commitments to other institutions within this state. One of the responsibilities that goes with these commitments is stating my views and criticisms should I believe the society is heading in the wrong directions. Once these commitments run out, I'll be more than glad to pack my bags.

then don't complain about anything being 'drug into' anything.

Org Profile · Post by **Otohiko** » Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:56 pm

Well, all I can say is that, really - this continues to prove to me how subjective the world we live in is. We live in different worlds. Right now, I am living in a state with cameras on every corner. I'm still skeptical about evidence of widespread rape, torture, etc., etc. I'm still skeptical about the grounds on which the war was conducted.

Don't get me wrong. I'm living in an open, largely free world, but it's also a world that's going ever more crazy and irrational, ever more out of balance. Every time I read a story like this, it reminds me of how disgustingly insane and hypocritical, unfair and sad some things are.

I don't live in an imaginary world. I've spent time in other, very different places, dealing with very real people and very real, tough circumstances. I've spent time trying to understand and bring together the best and distance myself from the worst. I'm not an irrational, under-educated, or insecure person. I'm not ignorant to the threats of terrorism, which hit close to home, repeatedly, I'm not ignorant to threats of political vacuums, I'm not ignorant to the threads presented by the deceptive veil of 'democracy' or 'free market economy'.

I'm hoping you're capable of believing in your convinctions as much as this, sixstop, in which case - again, it only proves the difference between the realities people live in.

Sadly, this difference is among the factors that makes the world the insane and dangerous place that it presently is.

I really ought to step out. Again, remember that my goal is not to persuade anyone. I think the source of this thread has facts to do that, whichever way it may be.

post-it · Post by **post-it** » Sat Sep 13, 2003 7:09 pm

Otohiko wrote:you can't prove that a country which went from a third-world colony to a first-world socialist-authoritarian state to sub-third-world colony is, in fact, better under the present situation than it ever was is simply not feasible.
Swiss Humanitarian Report wrote:http://www.sdc.admin.ch/ressources/deza ... _e_332.pdf

you forget, the People of Iraq never saw a penny of this; therefor its pointless.

RayCom and quite a few other Companies started to build Industry `right on
top of peoples land and then forced them to work in the Plant that now stood
where their house's used to - your history books do not show that which is fine!
And the People became poorer and more poorer as Industry became too popular.
- Now add what Saddom's kids were doing, after the Shaw of Iran was layed
to rest ( the only Man Saddom feared ) and a slightly different picture of that
regein begins to unfold - ¿no?

Industry did the damage to the peoples and I prey that your history books
will never record THAT!

The damage can not be undone, and we know that; if erasing the current Government
will correct the current Problems in Iraq, then the peoples are all for it - because
most of them are just too too close to the problem to grasp a solution.
But, what Iraq does not need is New Industry - and That is what some are fighting
against!

A daily routine for the Iraqies is quite different than most countries that are
next to her; Get up when the Sun rises, Worship, Lunch, Work, go home, and
as the Sun goes down - sleep into the new day. (( Simple Clean no-problems ))

When that day comes, I will return once more; I will open my doors and welcome
you to visit and stay as long as you desire with no reservations needed for
that is our custom and our way of life.

peace ^^

nailz · Post by **nailz** » Sun Sep 14, 2003 1:39 pm

post-it wrote:some words about reservists

what the fuck are you talking about? My gripe is the actual army went over for 3 months, then came home, and the reserve units are stuck over there for a year and more. I hardly see how that's fair to reservists who don't spend their full time jobs with the army, who have other jobs that need to be done and failing health care because they've been gone so long for their families, and a Government who will only reimburse you for your out of pocket pay (and with army efficiency, who know's how long that'll take.)

Next time you think I'm insulting my families line of work, maybe you should take more care in understanding a meaning.

SS5_Majin_Bebi · Post by **SS5_Majin_Bebi** » Mon Sep 15, 2003 12:52 am

angelx03 wrote:Dammit, why aren't the Americans pulling out of Iraq?

Because your military is a mismatched bunch of schizophrenics, people with power and god complexes, rednecks and backwater fucking HICKS like george w bush, (who runs your fucking COUNTRY), ignorant assholes with no concept of morality or respect for human life, and people who should be put in either maximum security prisons or maximum security insane asylums.

Is that a good enough reason? After reading that report..... jesus fucking christ the american military makes me sick. I don't hate the lot of you, just the idiots of the like that are in that report. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with your society and your country?