Iraq Soccer team against Bush propaganda.

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

To all who still cling to the increasingly ridiculous belief that the average Iraqi supports the US actions in Iraq, I offer this interesting article. If these folks don't support the US, who would?

From Iraqi soccer players angered by Bush campaign ads featuring team LINK

Quote:

"How will [Bush] meet his god having slaughtered so many men and women? He has committed so many crimes." - Iraqi Olympic Mid-Fielder

Quote:

"My problems are not with the American people," says Iraqi soccer coach Adnan Hamad. "They are with what America has done in Iraq: destroy everything. The American army has killed so many people in Iraq. What is freedom when I go to the [national] stadium and there are shootings on the road?"

Quote:

"I want the violence and the war to go away from the city," says Sadir, 21. "We don't wish for the presence of Americans in our country. We want them to go away."

Quote:

Manajid, 22, who nearly scored his own goal with a driven header on Wednesday, hails from the city of Fallujah. He says coalition forces killed Manajid's cousin, Omar Jabbar al-Aziz, who was fighting as an insurgent, and several of his friends. In fact, Manajid says, if he were not playing soccer he would "for sure" be fighting as part of the resistance.

Note that these men played under the brutal rule of Oday Hussein who is know for torturing athletes.

They still oppose, in very strong terms, the US occupation. You shouldn't be surprised that not one of them is a foreign fighter.

The Bush propaganda is getting more and more incredible. What is simply amazing is that there are still a fair number of Americans are willing to swallow it without thinking.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 5,649 • Replies: 104

No top replies

Just out of curiosity, do you believe that the people of Iraq would be better off if Hussein, and his sons, and staff were still in power? Please try to give a definite yes or no.

0 Replies

Quote:

Just out of curiosity, do you believe that the people of Iraq would be better off if Hussein, and his sons, and staff were still in power? Please try to give a definite yes or no.

Which people? I mean, you can't just lump every person who is in Iraq together and make blanket statments like that.

For example, a little girl who was killed by an American bomb isn't better off. Or the guy who has no job - he isn't better off. Freedom is a thin cloak to wear in the grave, when it's someone else's freedom.

Your argument is poorly worded and illogical.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I mean would the populace on average be better off in balance. You may interpret my question in any way you like that is not actually inconsistent with what I have asked.

0 Replies

Brandon,

What I am saying is that the claim that Iraqi's as a whole support the US occupation and its interim government is clearly irrational.

The Bush supporters claim that the insurgency is the work of "foreign fighters" and the Iraqi's, as a group, want the US to succeed.

This view is clearly flawed. Many Iraqi's are happy that Saddam is gone, but many of those don't want the US to have anything to do with the new government. They want the US out now.

There is a lot of anger toward the US from Iraqi's. Many of them even support the insurgency.

0 Replies

Brandon, to answer your question, I think that many people are better off, and some are worse off.

But that question is not relevant to my point. Whether Iraqi's hated Saddam, or whether they are better off or worse off-- A growing number of Iraqi's hate the US and oppose the occupation. The message seems to increasably be that of an Iraqi interviewed on NPR (I forget which show)...

"Thank you for getting rid of Saddam, now get out of my country".

0 Replies

What you have presented, Eric, is anecdotal. I would be more interested in a survey, and reading such a survey, I would want to know exactly how the questions were phrased.

I will add, though, that, although we did not go into Iraq primarily to free an oppressed people, it seems only common sense to me that now they have a chance for a decent future, whereas before they did not.

0 Replies

Brandon,

This is not anectdotal.

This is from interviews with real Iraqi's- Iraqi's who experienced the terrors of the Hussein regime. These quotes work as a primary source.

... and I am confused I thought that freeing oppressed people was the main reason we went into Iraq now. Since there clearly weren't WMD's, just what was the reason?

0 Replies

They are from a primary source, but are they from a random sampling of the people of Iraq?

0 Replies

You know brandon that sounds real nice. But what good is the future to someone who is killed before ever seeing it? How is this magical future supposed to happen? Who is really going to benefit in this future?

Everyone agrees, Saddam was a bad man and it is better that he is gone. But that is all that can be said that is any good.

0 Replies

They are a group of Iraqi's who were chosen to play a sport. I am not offering them as a random sampling.

I offer them as real Iraqis who present a clearly Iraqi perspective (not the perspective, but a perspective). These opinion expressing anger at the US are not unique to soccer players.

I offer them as more proof that the opposition to the US from Iraqis is real. The Bush supporters are saying that the opposition is from a small group of foreigners. One member here even suggested that Bush is more popular than Sadr in Iraq.

If this were true, you would expect that thousands of Iraqis would show up with pictures of Bush and that any Sadr supporters would be afraid to show their support in public because of the overwhelming anger against him.

0 Replies

revel wrote:

You know brandon that sounds real nice. But what good is the future to someone who is killed before ever seeing it? How is this magical future supposed to happen? Who is really going to benefit in this future?

Everyone agrees, Saddam was a bad man and it is better that he is gone. But that is all that can be said that is any good.

Apparently the original poster doesn't agree to that at all.

Your logic seems to be:

1. People died in the war.
2. Therefore, the war should not have been fought.

This specific logic you have stated could be used to argue that no war should ever have been fought. Unless you actually do believe that, then it follows that your logic is incorrect.

0 Replies

I think Brandon is looking for a poll. This is the only one I could find and it is from March.

http://www.j-n-v.org/AW_briefings/JNV_briefing056.htm

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

They are a group of Iraqi's who were chosen to play a sport. I am not offering them as a random sampling.

I offer them as real Iraqis who present a clearly Iraqi perspective (not the perspective, but a perspective). These opinion expressing anger at the US are not unique to soccer players.

I offer them as more proof that the opposition to the US from Iraqis is real. The Bush supporters are saying that the opposition is from a small group of foreigners. One member here even suggested that Bush is more popular than Sadr in Iraq.

If this were true, you would expect that thousands of Iraqis would show up with pictures of Bush and that any Sadr supporters would be afraid to show their support in public because of the overwhelming anger against him.

Do 1% of Iraqis share their opinion? 99%? Something in between? This is anecdotal evidence. You cannot draw conclusions from it.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

I think Brandon is looking for a poll. This is the only one I could find and it is from March.

http://www.j-n-v.org/AW_briefings/JNV_briefing056.htm

This is interesting, but it seems to deal mostly with the occupation. It would have been interesting if they had been asked if they wish the US had not deposed Hussein.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
I think Brandon is looking for a poll. This is the only one I could find and it is from March.

http://www.j-n-v.org/AW_briefings/JNV_briefing056.htm

This is interesting, but it seems to deal mostly with the occupation. It would have been interesting if they had been asked if they wish the US had not deposed Hussein.

That's true, but apparently nobody cares what Iraqis think about that because nobody's polling them on it. I would love to see a poll on that as well.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
I think Brandon is looking for a poll. This is the only one I could find and it is from March.

http://www.j-n-v.org/AW_briefings/JNV_briefing056.htm

This is interesting, but it seems to deal mostly with the occupation. It would have been interesting if they had been asked if they wish the US had not deposed Hussein.

Back in March there was a big survey in Iraq, done by a consortium of international news organisations, that yielded a big thread on this board.

Of course, that was before a large number of things making life in Iraq seem even harder (Abu G., Fallujah, Najaf).

Back then, the survey found that 48 percent of Iraqis thought the invasion had been right, and 39% that it was wrong. However, only 42 percent thought the invasion "liberated" Iraq, while 41 percent said it "humiliated" the country. I think those two questions pretty much cover yours, Brandon.

Furthermore, 51 percent back then already opposed the presence of coalition forces; 39 percent supported it. Those numbers were flattered still by the hugely positive attitide of the Kurds. Among Arab Iraqis (Sunnis and Shi'ites), only 33 percent said the war had liberated the country, 48% said it had humiliated it. More Arab Iraqis also thought the invasion was wrong than right. 66% of all Iraqis had "not very much" confidence or "none at all" in the US and UK forces, 62% had not very much or none at all in the CPA. A huge majority did trust Iraq's own religious leaders, on the other hand.

Then there was another poll in May, commissioned by the CPA itself (news of which I posted in the same thread). It found that only 2 per cent of the Iraqis polled saw the coalition troops as liberators, while 92 per cent said they were occupiers.

(This was right alongside the finding that only 3 per cent expressed support for Saddam, by the way. The necessity expressed by some here, that if Iraqis hated Saddam they must thus be glad with the Americans coming in, does not seem to be sensed by Iraqis themselves.)

Change in public opinion was fast, which suggests the numbers must be even worse now: while back in January only 28% wanted the American troops to leave "immediately", that was up to 55% in May. Only 10% trusted the US/UK troops, and only 11% the CPA (this in a CPA-commissioned poll!). On the other hand, a full 67% said they supported Sadr, back then.

I've seen news of another poll still, with even worse results for the American perspective of Iraq being "liberated", but I didn't post it -- its on a fat pile of stuff I still sometime want to bring to A2K if I have time ...

0 Replies

Is Iraq Better Off W/O Saddam? Duh!
"Just out of curiosity, do you believe that the people of Iraq would be better off if Hussein, and his sons, and staff were still in power? Please try to give a definite yes or no. "

Shocked

You are kidding, right?

Let's go back in time~~~~~~~~~~~~to September 11, 2001~~~~~~~~~~~~~yet another day that with go down in infamy.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ah, here we are. September 11th, 2001. Look around the country for a moment. Take a look at New York. Now glance over at the Pentagon--in flames! While you are looking on these appalling sights turn to Pennsylvania and check out that tiny field where a plane just dove into the ground. That's enough of that~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I can't think about it or even bear to look at pictures from that day of the carnage! To this day I can't stand hearing anything that sounds remotely close to the alarm the fire fighters wore. Remember the eerie sound of the whistling alarms as the kept going off after the towers fell?

Now, your question was in regards to whether or not Iraqi citizens were better off now that we took their tyrannical leader out of power. Hmm. Lets keep that picture of Sept. 11th in our minds while we weigh the cost.
Over 3000 lost in ONE SINGLE DAY. ONE DAY. POOF! They were gone.
The first name mentioned in direct connection with the attacks was Osama bin Laden. Osama bin Laden Evil or Very Mad

Forgive me. I do not see why we are in Iraq and Osama bin Laden is still drawing breath. There HAS to be more to this than what we are ALLOWED to see. We have already lost so much in lives and our media is swathed daily in the bickering between consertives and liberals who both want to be the "good-guy".

Iraqi's are better off w/o their tyranical leader. Duh! But are we better off? I don't think so. Until our parties (Democrat/Republican) cease their petty bickering and name calling and try to work together to give us, as their constituency, the TRUTH as we deserve we will forever be in danger of another Sept. 11th or similar.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Just out of curiosity, do you believe that the people of Iraq would be better off if Hussein, and his sons, and staff were still in power? Please try to give a definite yes or no.

Why don't you address the topic?

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

Just out of curiosity, do you believe that the people of Iraq would be better off if Hussein, and his sons, and staff were still in power? Please try to give a definite yes or no.

What difference does it make to us? Saddam wan't a threat to us. The Iraqi people should have overthrown him themselves. Why are we killing them to save them and losing American lives as well? IMO only blind partians continue to justify this fiasco.

0 Replies

Iraq Soccer team against Bush propaganda.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know