US to Create a Secret Police in Iraq

[Patroklos]

"expected to be fairly ruthless in dealing with the remnants of Saddam."

I certainly hope so, though assuming assasinations and whatnot is just hysteria on your part. Ever occur to you one reason they are including all these militias in this organization is to put some sort of control on them? I wouldn't be supprised it that is the ONLY reason.

So since you believe everyone is militant, and you don't like law enforcment that isn't shackled to the point of uselessness, what is your alternative?

[Ramo]

I certainly hope so, though assuming assasinations and whatnot is just hysteria on your part.

It's not hysteria. These militias have been assassinating plenty. The problem is that we're legitimizing those sorts of actions.

Ever occur to you one reason they are including all these militias in this organization is to put some sort of control on them? I wouldn't be supprised it that is the ONLY reason.

If that is a reason, it's an idiotic one. Legitimizing militias takes away rule of law, and replaces it with violence. We're effectively telling the Sunnis that they're ****ed. So they might as well keep militantly resisting because we're too stupid to try accommodating them.

And if you honestly believe that some of these millitia leaders are going to take orders from Washington - or even a democratically elected Iraq government, you're deluding yourself.

So since you believe everyone is militant, and you don't like law enforcment that isn't shackled to the point of uselessness, what is your alternative?

Not wantonly assassinating and trying people before punishing them is shackling law enforcement to the point of uselessness? Ok Mr. Mussolini...

[Ted Striker]

Ramo, DUDE

I have NEVER seen anyone MAKE THINGS UP the way you do.

QUOTE BY RAMO:

Only because you said:

Anyone who questions the wisdom of a secret police force composed of nasty militias is a "poosy."

I called you a poosy because TCO did and it was funny.



Nice to see you can draw that complete thought from the word, "poosy."

You make waaaaaaaaayyyy too many assumptions.

Or maybe you like setting up strawmen.

[Ramo]

Give it up dude. Your first post:

"That's nice Ramo

Argue about something you think MIGHT happen

Poosy"

Once again, you *****ed because I questioned the wisdom of using a secret police force composed of these crazy militias. A normal person who gives a damn about Iraqis wouldn't do that. You did. My conclusion was, you're apathetic.

[Ted Striker]

A

"NORMAL"

person would understand that the secret police are being implemented for the good of the Iraqi people.

DUH

[Patroklos]

You are just a causist making things up as you go. Some might be polite and call it assumption, but it is just an overactive imagination.

But to make you happy I will have the secret CIA death squads kill all of the militias with the Army's new Lightning Tanks (Yes, another breaking story of CSM a month ago) and then, becasue they are totally disciplined to the facist contstruct of the CIA, have them commit suicide.

Not that that will make you happy, mainly do to your inability to have any chain of events agree with you. Your kind is epidemic these days and thankfully chained to these forums.

[Ramo]

person would understand that the secret police are being implemented for the good of the Iraqi people.

Ah silly me, freedom is slavery.


Alright, Patroklos, let's go over this one more time.

The facts are that the militias have been wantonly assassinating, and when former-Ba'athists have been assassinated, we've been saything that's ok.

The facts are that the militias have been extremely agressive, and have often disployed strong oppositions to both liberty as well as American policies to the point of violence.

The facts are that we've been using these militias as a paramilitary force (and assassinations by no means have stopped).

So, along comes this Telegraph article. It says that the US is going to create a secret police out of the militias and that, "If successfully set up, the group would work in tandem with American forces but would have its own structure and relative independence. It could be expected to be fairly ruthless in dealing with the remnants of Saddam."

Ok, so what are the possible merits of the decision?

-It could reign in the militias. That'd be pretty hard since, as I just explained, most of them aren't apt to take orders from us - they even have "relative independence" from Amercan forces, and they are expected to be "fairly ruthless." I'll contrast this with a more sensible policy (by Karzai's gov't) in Afghanistan, where instead of giving the warlords a greater part in government and trying to co-opt them, Karzai has been systematically and fairly competently been attacking the power of the warlords by trying to disarm them and minimize their power in government; this policy is actually working fairly well although there are some hitches, but in Iraq where the militias have far, far, less power than the warlords, it could easily be successful.

-It could bring troop strength to a level large enough to destroy the insurgency, or at the very least prevent it from making major successes. I personally think that's the reasoning Bremer et al. used since it isn't quite as ludicrous as creating this police force to try to reign them in. However, as I said earlier, there are a number of problems with this policy, starting with the undermining of the rule of law. This would frighten the Sunni's, many of which are former Ba'athist members, into continuing to fight as such an action clearly excludes them from participation in the new Iraqi society.

In addition, you've got long-term problems, namely the ability of this organization to become politically strong enough to support their agenda through massive repression. Again, look at Iran and what happened to the secret police we trained for them. From a realist POV, this is bad because it could trigger a revolution, and I don't think I need to explain how it's bad from a humanitarian POV.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
A

"NORMAL"

person would understand that the secret police are being implemented for the good of the Iraqi people.

A normal person would understand that everything implemented by the US has only the interests of the US in mind. When it's good for the Iraqi people, more power to them. When it' bad for them, well, that's too bad.

[Patroklos]

That is a very brutally honest way of putting it, and consequently truthful.

There are alot more of the former than the latter regarding Spiffors comment.

[Ted Striker]

Yeah, we like at least 2 of our guys dying every day and spending billions of dollars to do it.

Yeah, always in our self interests.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Yeah, we like at least 2 of our guys dying every day and spending billions of dollars to do it.

Yeah, always in our self interests.

Of course! You wouldn't pay such a price for altruistic concerns, don't you think?

[Ted Striker]

Look *******, we are talking about the freaking secret police here and then you have to inject your daily hypocritical, "USA is responsible for blah blah...USA is oppressing blah blah...USA only cares about itself"

Now go back to being French and go blow up some islands in the Pacific, invade Africa for chocolate, or do some other insignificant "screw the world we're also acting in our self interests but it's okay for us" bull****

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
A

"NORMAL"

person would understand that the secret police are being implemented for the good of the Iraqi people.

DUH

In Iraq if you are policeman you want it to be a secret, because if it is public information then some nut case with blow your fvcking brain out saying you are ploy for the American.

[Patroklos]

Very true.

Ther is no real comparison between Western law enforcement and what would be nessecary in Iraq. Calling them "secret police" is just a scare tactic on these types of publications. For all intents and purposes most police are secret.

When was the last time you went rumaging through police case files?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Look *******, we are talking about the freaking secret police here and then you have to inject your daily hypocritical, "USA is responsible for blah blah...USA is oppressing blah blah...USA only cares about itself"

Now go back to being French and go blow up some islands in the Pacific, invade Africa for chocolate, or do some other insignificant "screw the world we're also acting in our self interests but it's okay for us" bull****

I don't understand why so many Americans assume I am apologetic of my country. It must be imaginable for these people that someone can actually disagree with his own's country's policies.

The fact that I'm saying the US acts in its only interest doesn't mean I assume France is any better. I have repeatedly written here that our both countries have followed their own nterest in this charade, and that both have tried to get the moral high ground in their PRopaganda.

USA only cares about itself, just like any other country. I fail to see what is surprising, what is shocking, and what is wrong with that statement. You can be sure the US would not lose 2 men a day and billions of dollars only for some humanitarian concern. Otherwise, the US would have chosen to pay the much less money (and the zero human cost) needed to remove malnutrition and common disease in all stable parts of the world, a much greater aim than saving Iraqis, yet cheaper.