Reply
Sat 24 Apr, 2004 05:53 pm
A young man who knows pointed out to me today that many Iraqi citizens yell and give the middle finger to US troops every time they pass by, and chant "Go home America" and "We hate America" pretty often.
I asked why, then, do we see groups of Iraqis on TV who seem happy and supportive, and he said those are not large groups, as they appear. He talked about a soccer game held today in which the same kind of anti-America chanting was heard loud and clear. He says that many Iraqi's want Saddam back. When I asked how that could be, he pointed out that under Saddam, all the religious nut groups rising up in Iraq today were held at bay. They were afraid of Saddam, and Iraq was better off under him, they feel. They had water and schools and also freedom of religion.
Now they are worried about how they will end up, and they just want us to go the hell home. They feel that they were better off under Saddam.
Maybe I should apologize to Reagan/BushI? By training and assisting Saddam Hussein, they helped keep Iraq together and relatively peaceful. (I'm sure the Kurds at one time would disagree). Maybe that was part of the plan, using him to keep the religious fanatics at bay. ? It's too bad that somebody who is not an evil dictator or a religious fanatic won't rise up and help bring Iraq back to a place where the Iraqi people want it to be, and let our guys come home.
Re: Now I understand Saddam
suzy wrote:
They feel that they were better off under Saddam.
Maybe I should apologize to Reagan/BushI? By training and assisting Saddam Hussein, they helped keep Iraq together and relatively peaceful. (I'm sure the Kurds at one time would disagree). Maybe that was part of the plan, using him to keep the religious fanatics at bay. ? It's too bad that somebody who is not an evil dictator or a religious fanatic won't rise up and help bring Iraq back.....
I've always admired and respected Ronald Reagan (admitting ignorance about details of his policies and administration) and your post, suzy, qualifies my opinion that RR was a terrific diplomat and one smart cookie...so was Bush I (he sucked on the homefront though).
I would suggest that when Bush II looses his job this November, we appoint him as the new leader of Iraq. He fits the bill perfectly...he's a religious fanatic and rules like a dictator.
Eh, I still don't admire Reagan.
However, I found this to be provocative.
Apparently McG doesn't agree! C'est La Vie...
Your young man is mistaken about one thing. Most Iraqis do support the Coalition. There are some who don't, but they're in the minority.
There is law and order in a dictatorship. And you also have torture and mass graves and a lack of freedom. To suggest that Saddam's return would be a good thing for the people is to ignore the millions whose loved ones lie in unmarked graves.
Iraq
Saddam won't be returning. Maybe the Iraqis will like Negroponte. He seems to be enough of a dictator to replace Saddam.
BBB
I find Saddam and Tito held their disparate populations factions together by force. After Tito's death, the Balkans fell apart into civil war. There is a lesson to be learn from the Balkans as applied to Iraq.
BBB
Back in '71 I had the privilege of chatting in San Antonio with a veteran of the Battle of Britain for a few hours. One thing he said that stuck with me is "people get the kind of government they deserve".
If the Iraqis aren't willing to turn in the foreign troublemakers in their midst, and if the reconstituted Iraqi Army isn't willing to fight to put down the thugs, then to Hell with them.
Re: BBB
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:I find Saddam and Tito held their disparate populations factions together by force. After Tito's death, the Balkans fell apart into civil war. There is a lesson to be learn from the Balkans as applied to Iraq.
BBB
With all due respect, but after living "under" Tito, and "under" communism and being incredibly happy that my country is independent today I still think that it's a huge offense for Tito. Tito haven't held populations by force, but with wisdom. Tito WAS dictator, but he was never brutal dictator (except in early years after WW2), and while still being communistic country with all bad things that brings, Yugoslavia was nowhere near communism like one behind iron curtain. As much as West was more liberate and democratic then Yugoslavia, exactly that much Yugoslavia was more liberate and democratic then rest of communistic world (note that YU was also leader of "non-alignment" block of countries, having absolutely no ties with USSR) and Tito has really nothing to do in the same sentence with Saddam.
Also, his death also didn't exaclty brought countries into war, but that's different and very very long topic.
Yes
It's those damn foreigners that are the trouble in Iraq. Yeah, the Iraqis should kick them out.
Jim wrote:Back in '71 I had the privilege of chatting in San Antonio with a veteran of the Battle of Britain for a few hours. One thing he said that stuck with me is "people get the kind of government they deserve".
If the Iraqis aren't willing to turn in the foreign troublemakers in their midst, and if the reconstituted Iraqi Army isn't willing to fight to put down the thugs, then to Hell with them.
this is excellent point, and in the widest meaning possible, despite all eventual political disagreements.
Most Iraqis do not support the occupation.
Just ask the 120,000 refugees from Fallujah living in in tents in Baghdad who are terrified to go home for fear a missle will come through the wall of their house and kill their child or wife of husband.
This is neocon propaganda -- plain and simple.
MyOwnUsername
MyOwnUsername, glad to meet you here on A2K.
I used the Tito and Saddam example of strong-men dictatorships to illustrate what happens when the strong political force holding groups of incompatible people together no longer exists. Civil war is usually the result regardless of whether it is a tribal society or a more sophisticated one. The power vacuum leads to competitive strife unless there has been established a well-accepted transfer of power structure with a named successor.
I agree with you on that one. But, I also must say that no nation or group was supressed during Tito's era (except all being kinda supressed in a way that we had no political freedom - only political though), so, what started war in Balkan is actually supression that came after Tito, especially economic supression of more developed republics such as Slovenia and Croatia - by Serbia. Then political supression began, with Serbs taking all main positions in police and army in all republics, and then nationalism came (this one, unfortunately, not only by Serbs), and then finally, with Balkan-limited serbian imperialism, war came...(it's probably important to note that Yugoslav Constitution from 1974th gave every republic right to leave federation whenever they decide)...
With Saddam is different, because some religious or national groups were heavily supressed during his regime
MyOwnUsername
MyOwnUsername, I keep hoping that someone, somewhere will use what we learned in your country to prevent another tragic and brutal episode in Iraq. The U.S.'s current leadership appears to not be good students of history, even recent history, and are hell-bent to repeat the mistakes made in the Balkans. Iraq is even more dangerous because the conflict will suck in the entire Muslim world.
BBB
Re: Now I understand Saddam
doglover wrote:
I would suggest that when Bush II looses his job this November, we appoint him as the new leader of Iraq. He fits the bill perfectly...he's a religious fanatic and rules like a dictator.[/b][/color]
Nah, he is not capable of that. To be successfull dictator, along with your fanatism and sickness, you also have to be smart. Only thing worse then Saddam that could happen to Iraq is Bush
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace