Dancing in the streets, part Deux!

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Kramerman,

Justice has a way of killing people sometimes, even with non-lethal weapons, but if done carefully then the shouts of those angry at americans will be drowned out by those who are happy to have their private property protected. Nobody's saying its an easy job, just that we don't have a choice but to do it. We chose(supposedly) to be here.

I agree that it needs to get done, but like many have said before, its a fine line that we must balance on, and we must be careful so we do not fall. We cannot just rush in and impose law and order immediately, as many here seem to think the US should. As much as i hate anarchy, we must be careful. I am really curious how our top leadership are planning to solve this delima... i really hope its works

[DanS]

I am amazed you people, who I deem intelligent, insist on denying the evidence that Baghdad has entered anarchy, where common thugs and needy people use their force to pillage what they want/can. You seem to believe they are driven by political conciousness, but they are not. They are driven by greed or need, and the general climate of "everthing is allowed".

Spiffor: How long did it take things to settle down in Paris when liberated in WWII?

[Kropotkin]

AFAIK this is nothing like the liberation of Paris. If anyone knows, inform me. Besides the snipers reported during the march of DeGaulle I have no recollection of reading anything about anything like this back in august of 1944.

[Menlas]

Yes, the comparison with Paris is irrelevant.
Because the new french government has been immediatly operationnal (one of De Gaulle's wishes, instead of letting US army administer the country first). What's more, french armies were the first to enter Paris, so looting or stealing was out of question.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DanS
Spiffor: How long did it take things to settle down in Paris when liberated in WWII?

This wasn't my point. I too think this period of anarchy will abate in a few days, and I'm more concerned with humaintarian aid than with the looting.

My point was that you and Ned seem to believe the looters have a political agenda. That their looting is their way to cheer the liberation from Saddam's oppression. Do you really think these people are driven with political concerns, or do you think they are driven by need / greed ?

[GePap]

When the Shah fell, wes there mass looting? What about in Belgrade when Milosevic fell? Iremember people romping around the presidential palaces, but I don;t remember government buildings being looted. Was there looting in bucharest during the violent Uprising to get rid of the regime there?

Widespread lootign following the collapse of a regime is only the norm if nothing follows the fall of the old regime, even if the rgeime, as in bucharest, fell violently. "It's a war zone" is not that valid an excuse. when we knew going in we would have to secure the areas. What is shows is an aversion by coolition commnaders to take up "nation building" and peacekeeping duties.

French, german, and Russian embassies are the territory of those states and looting them is not allowed. Ned: did you approve of the taking of hostages at the Tehran embassy in 1979? After all, the US was allied to the Shah regime, and went so far as to allow him to go to the US after he was overthrown. By your logic what happened there was understandable, after all, after decades of repression the people of Iran attacked the symbols of the regime and the allies of his dictatorship, no?

[Ned]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
German and French are still our NATO allies. Failing to defend them is a whole different matter then them failing to join us in what they consider a war of aggression.

Hah! The Germans and French are allies no more.

We should defend their embassies only to the extent required by international law, and no more.

However, given the shortage of police, it may be some time before we can send help. They should look to their own defenses.

[GePap]

Hah! The Germans and French are allies no more.

When exactly did the senate revoke the NATO charter? I amcurious, cause only after such a step would you statement be anythign other than a misplaced opinion.

[gsmoove23]

Just because they've somehow offended you does not change their allied status. They have not abrogated any treaties and while you may be privately happy of what happened you should be dismayed. Those embassies were an american responsibility since the americans are occupiers and their ransacking will be valid ammunition that anti-americans can use.

[DinoDoc]

For Ned:

France appears to change its mind about war

April 11, 2003

BY JOCELYN GECKER ASSOCIATED PRESS


PARIS-- With Saddam Hussein vanquished and Iraqis dancing in the streets of Baghdad, the French appear to have undergone an attitude adjustment about the U.S.-led war.

No one is cheering the U.S. government, but there's support for the fall of Saddam and the swift manner in which it was accomplished.

"The Americans have won the war-- in only three weeks," Le Figaro newspaper wrote in an editorial. "It is a victory for George Bush."

Absent now is the criticism that prevailed during France's bitter pre-war arguments with the United States and Britain. French leaders said Thursday they "rejoiced" in the collapse of Saddam's regime, and political analysts said the French people now wonder whether their country was right to oppose the war so staunchly.

"The French are discovering the truth-- that the coalition was efficient," said Francois Gere, director of the Paris-based Diplomatic and Defense Institute.

Before the fighting began last month, newspapers and politicians portrayed the United States and Britain as "invaders" opposed by the Iraqi people, Gere said.

"Instead we see pictures of Iraqi people celebrating-- not only the arrival of British and U.S. forces, but celebrating the end of a regime," Gere said.

His words were echoed by Philippe Moreau Defarges of the French Institute of International Relations.

"We're seeing a subtle shift," Defarges said. "We are starting to hear a more dissonant voice in France. The U.S. victory has made the debate more complex."

French newspaper editorials still retained a healthy dose of skepticism, questioning the whereabouts of Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction and focusing on the challenge of postwar reconstruction.

But in the war's first two weeks, French media went heavy with coverage of Iraqi civilian casualties and scenes of suffering.

The weekly news magazine Le Point featured an American soldier on its cover under the headline, "The Tragedy." Le Figaro magazine showed an American soldier trudging through the mud beneath the question: "Iraq-- A New Vietnam?"

On Thursday, media criticism was aimed squarely at the fallen Saddam. Several newspapers and TV news magazines ran lengthy features on the cruelty of his regime.

"The dictator who terrorized Iraq," was the title of a two-page spread in Le Monde newspaper.

At Paris bus stops and cafes, people enthusiastically welcomed Saddam's ouster, but were mixed about the U.S. role.

"For a long time, the Iraqi people needed to revolt against Saddam Hussein-- but couldn't do it alone," said Jacques Bidot, waiting for a bus near the Champs-Elysees.

But he dismissed the TV images of exuberant Iraqis as "a lot of propaganda."

While the French government stopped short of saying so, leading politicians insisted Thursday that France was right to oppose the war.

"Two weeks ago, everyone was taking their hats off to France," said former Prime Minister Alain Juppe. "Today they're starting to say we were wrong. We have nothing to regret."

[Ned]

On CNN.com, there is an audio interview with one of the looters who explains that Saddam and his party are being targeted because they kept the wealth of the nation to themselves and impoverished everyone else. There is indeed an element of politics and revenge in what is going on.

I also listened to a report on the radio last night that the per capita income of Iraq fell from $9,000 per person in 1979 when Saddam took over to less than a $1000 per person today. As this was going on, the people saw the Baath party enriching themselves and living like kings while torturing and killing any who complained.

To the extent that the media are not reporting that the targets of the looting are largely, if not exclusively, Baath party members residences and government buildings, they are leaving a misimpression of what is actually going on

[gsmoove23]

You have a tendency of going to interviews of any idiot on the street for your evidence. Or using horribly misleading statements like the one you have about per capita income.

The decline of Iraq is predominately due to GW1 and the 12 years of sanctions that followed.

Again, because the media may be reporting something you would prefer not to believe is no reason to believe they are being misleading.

[Ned]

DinoDoc, The day Chirac admits he was wrong is the day the wounds begin to heal.

It is welcome, though, that the French people are beginning to reconsider whether the fall of Saddam was good for the people of Iraq. They may begin to question why their government and their press never before reported the truth about Saddam and his barbaric regime.

[Ned]

gsmoove, the decline in income was caused mainly by Saddam's warlike behavior. He attacked Iran, Kuwait and chose confrontation that extended the sanctions.

Saddam brought his country to ruin.

[gsmoove23]

Yet the per capita income didn't significantly decline until 1991.