14 years in an Iraqi prison for selling a roll of film

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MRT144
what i say is more in jest than anything else. i think if americans want to be the armed ambassador of democracy, then why apply our might to only a few select countries?

also if the war does go through and is wildly succesful, dont you think that sets dangerous new precedent for our future actions? whos next in line? syria, iran? shall we just mosey in and apply a regime change because it was so wildly succesful in iraq? (assuming it is wildly succesful)

If - big if - we are wildly successful ,there will probably be change in Iran very fast without our lifting a finger. The dissidents in Iran are watching the Iraqi situation very closely.

Once Iran changes, Syria is deprived of its principle ally. Should prove possible to influence them without using force.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
So you're saying the attitude of the peace marchers towards Iraqis is the same as the attitude of Falwell towards gays??
Thank you for making my point.

Sure you find me saying this. Yes, so deep is my hate against Iraqis that I oppose war on them.
Gays and Falwell are two very extreme opposites. The opinions of this Iraqi gruop on the Iraq war and anti-war protestors are extreme opposites. That's the whole analogy, although I guess I didn't need Falwell in there.
I mainly came across him, because the author in the article tried to send the sublime message that Jesse Jackson was a hypocrite with no real authority to speak in the name of the lord - that made me instantly think about Falwell.

You seem to be of the opinion that the Iraqi population is desperately hoping for that war to happen - it is not. That woman or that group of people does not represent the whole Iraqi population. That doesn't mean that those people are only isolated Iraqi voices either or should have no right to state their opinion, but hijacking an anti-war protest for that purpose is surely not the way. She can oppose the protests as long as she wants and think that they back up a brutal dictator. It's always sad to hear individual cases, but Saddam is not the only brutal dictator in the world and some are backed by the US, others by China, others by nobody...Most Iraqis and workers from non-governmental organization who have seen the miserable conditions of people living in Iraq under Saddam also seem in their overwhelming majority not to support the war because it's obvious that the war will do more harm than good - the good being Saddam out of the way.
So, that group does not represent anybody except themselves. They want him removed? So do I. Still I oppose the war, for a lot of reasons I will not repeat here.



You seem to have a very fine attitude of quoting just parts, not issuing the argument or questions - like revealing the site of the article.

About the kurds: Yes, it were Turkish kurds - at least in their vast majority. Not people I could really get warmhearted for.

[St Leo]

Of course, the sentences doled out in the US for uncapping cable modems, hacking, and software piracy are just a few measly years. We should all thank your lucky stars.

[The Mad Monk]

Re: 23 years in a US prison for being a ******

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
What's that all about? Of course Saddam is a f*cking dictator - get it finally in your heads that those who oppose the war know that.

Still, I can't help posting this here at that instance:

Oh God, not this **** again.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Amazingly, as you can see, this is an untrue observation.
Go figure, huh ?

So, he's not a nasty bastard in your opinion. Why, then, are you interested in attacking Iraq at this point?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III


Sure you find me saying this. Yes, so deep is my hate against Iraqis that I oppose war on them.
Gays and Falwell are two very extreme opposites. The opinions of this Iraqi gruop on the Iraq war and anti-war protestors are extreme opposites.

The anti-war protestors purport to oppose the war in the name of the people of Iraq. I would expect to see at least some Iraqis invted to speak. This is more as if a pro-gay rights group, composed entirely of straights, refused to allow some gays to speak who didnt share their opinion on some issue, and who had no gays on the agenda at all.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III



You seem to be of the opinion that the Iraqi population is desperately hoping for that war to happen - it is not.

Yes, my impression from a variety of sources is precisely that - the Iraqi population is divided into essentially 3 groups - 1. Those who are desperately hoping for the war to happen. 2. Those, who are conflicted, largely because they assume the US will target power plants resulting in massive civilian deaths 3. Those who oppose are opposed to it. My impression is that group 3 is tiny (beyond the regime's flunkies) Group 1 is in the majority in those places (such as among Iraqi exiles in the US) who are familiar with US plans for the war and its aftermath. I see no evidence otherwise.

Now i fully see that is possible to oppose the war for other reasons - for example international norms - but most of the anti-war protesters i have seen, and the anti-war opinions I have seen, especially those that oppose war even with UN sanction, are based on the well being of the people of Iraq.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III





You seem to have a very fine attitude of quoting just parts, not issuing the argument or questions - like revealing the site of the article.

The quote came from the National Review - avery conservative US magazine. I was attempting to discuss this without getting into what i though was an irrelevant discussion of that mags bias.


I am sure I can find things from less conservative mags, if you would like.

[Sava]

The US justice system isn't so good, so I would be complaining about Iraq. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

The anti-war protestors purport to oppose the war in the name of the people of Iraq. I would expect to see at least some Iraqis invted to speak. This is more as if a pro-gay rights group, composed entirely of straights, refused to allow some gays to speak who didnt share their opinion on some issue, and who had no gays on the agenda at all.

Let's agree that we stop talking about Falwell, althuogh I wouldn't be too sure that all anti-gay guys are straight.

I agree that having Iraqis speak up is a good idea in anti-war rallies, though having just someone speak is not. Furthermore, the voices of those in exile only very often aren't really representative. Mostly, those who are exiled had personal reasons to leave the country and are a natural opposition. Exile Chileans were100% anti-Pinochet in the 70s, people in Chile itself maybe 30% (just taking that example because I lived there, not at that time though).

Yes, my impression from a variety of sources is precisely that - the Iraqi population is divided into essentially 3 groups - 1. Those who are desperately hoping for the war to happen. 2. Those, who are conflicted, largely because they assume the US will target power plants resulting in massive civilian deaths 3. Those who oppose are opposed to it. My impression is that group 3 is tiny (beyond the regime's flunkies) Group 1 is in the majority in those places (such as among Iraqi exiles in the US) who are familiar with US plans for the war and its aftermath. I see no evidence otherwise.

Now i fully see that is possible to oppose the war for other reasons - for example international norms - but most of the anti-war protesters i have seen, and the anti-war opinions I have seen, especially those that oppose war even with UN sanction, are based on the well being of the people of Iraq.

And I honestly doubt that Iraqi people are happy with what the US plans to install there after the war. Bush says he wants to establish democracy there and it will be an example for the whole region. Anyone who buys this is a fool who knows nothing about the ME, nor about the motives of the US government! Iraqis know their country good enough that a western style or even American style democracy won't work there and most won't support such a democracy anyway. Don't make me laugh...
When it comes on the Iraqi people, I have a rather twisted opinion about the war:
a) They'd be better of without Saddam.
b) a war will be a humanitarian tragedy, that's for sure.
c) if there's any chance that war doesn't happen, it's still not time to rejoice for there's no way the sanctions get lifted. If war is prevented, even tighter sanctions will be the price - and those will be even more than the current sanctions target the normal population (if that's possible)

So, considering what WILL happen on the international scale, a soon war will be the best for the Iraqis, for no war means a war later and mad sanctions that cost the lives of more hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. - That still doesn't mean the war is just nor justifyable though.

[Sava]

good post Wernazuma III

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III

Exile Chileans were100% anti-Pinochet in the 70s, people in Chile itself maybe 30% (just taking that example because I lived there, not at that time though).

In hte case of Iraq about 20% of the population is in exile. And in the one part of Iraq where free expression is permitted, IE Iraqi Kurdistan, they seem quite desperate for the US to come.

I will admit though that we dont know for sure the opinions of Iraqis living under Saddam, at wont know until Saddam is overthrown.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III

Iraqis know their country good enough that a western style or even American style democracy won't work there and most won't support such a democracy anyway. Don't make me laugh...

Ive certainly heard from outside "exeprts" and from non-Iraqi arabs that democracy wont work in Iraq. I have not heard that from any Iraqis. The Kurdish regions are ruled essentially democratically, IIUC, and the exiles are mistrustful of US plans becusae they fear we WONT support a democracy, but will put another dictator in place. Wolfowitz appeared before a gathering of Iraqi-American the other day to reassume that the US WOULD push for demo.

BTW, Wern, do you think democracy is possible in Iran???

[Wernazuma III]

LOTM: Iraq's kurds are hoping for US intervention because they hope to get their own state and not because they're so democracy loving. In fact, kurdish society is extremely women-hating e.g., so whatever means democracy there means not democracy as we know it. And it's easy for them to want the war as they know that US forces won't destroy their homes and villages in the north.
I also think it's funny that Bush said that a democratic Iraq qill be an example for the Palestinians. Palestinians have had democratic votes, Arafat is not their dictator. Palestine is about the level of democracy possible in the region.
Iraq simply has no democratic political landscape or personalities with the required poularity and integrity to promote democracy. The Us will have to either install a US-citizen as temporary governor (what surely makes them many friends) or another guy, who will turn out a dictator sooner or later, in one way or the other. Democracies as we know them only work in pluralistic societies, otherwise they're nothing than a dictatorship of the majority.
I don't say that things can't improve in Iraq, but it's nonsense to claim that once Saddam is gone, the whole country can be a model-democracy, once "the will of the people" rules.
If you leave the country alone, a new dictatorship will emerge. While I think that's sad, those societies have to grow by themselves. Occupation to ensure their "freedom" and to forcefully support "open minded" groups and hold down more extreme movements is also nothing more than dictatorship. It's that old colonialist attitude of "white man's burden": If they don't know by themselves what is best for them, we have to do it.
It doesn't work that way. Especially the muslim world still suffers from the "colonial syndrome" - a very deep feeling of inferiority and hate. It's the scars of colonialism that led in many ways to fundamentalism. The reasons for their bad situation are easily found: conspiracy theories about evil Americans wanting only the worst for them plus they're told that they became weak because they didn't pursue true Islam anymore. Now the US are acting once again like an imperial power, imposing what is best for them. It will cause the same resentments, even worse this time. Hold on for terrorism, when US continues to "free" those people from their opressors. Worsened by the fact that American companies WILL take advantage of the situation, even though it's not the reason for the war.
Furthermore, if the US really try to install a "western type" democracy there, it will make things worse, even if some kind of democracy would have worked. Throughout the Arab world, people have no real sense for secularisation. Even the human rights as we know them are regarded as "product of Christian culture" and the human rights of islam look pretty odd to our eyes and moral sense.
One other reason why democracy will not work is because Saddam and the sanctions were very successful in making people fatalistic and cut them off from information. The Iraq lacks a reasonable number of citizens with the required intellectual background to stabilize the system.

That's one of the reasons why democracy in Iran is more likely are the following: Democratic structures, though in many ways ineffective, are not dead in Iran. Political reflection and evaluation of what happens does exist. The intellectual classes have endured, people have access to information. Compared to Iraq (and also Saudi Arabia and some other US allies), Iran has almost excessive freedom of speech. The shiite Islam furthermore is actually more flexible and adaptable for democracy, lamentably time has not come for this. But before Khomeni, it was a strict rule that the mullahs must not interfer with politics! This might well change back, although it's not likely to happen soon.
If popular opinion becomes too hostile towards the Mullah's though, there'll be a change.

Uh, quite a long post.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
LOTM: Iraq's kurds are hoping for US intervention because they hope to get their own state and not because they're so democracy loving.

They have made it quite clear they dont expect thier own state. Such a state would be too vlunerable to Turkey.