Very happy. I love you George Bush.

Biffa Bacon

Just wondering what all you anti-war people think of the ordinary Iraqi civilians celebrating their liberation. Considering how built-up residential areas has been carpet bombed for three weeks solid, every square inch of Iraq is littered with unexploded cluster bombs, their sons, husbands and brothers in the army are fighting bitterly to the last man in defence of their homeland and there is mass starvation throughout the land. Seems a bit strange that they'd welcome the colonial imperialist forces of the aggressor doesn't it?

Into Basra - and the mood changes

Karbala 'Like a Carnival' As Troops Take Control

PH01

The truth hurts, doesn't it?!

Long live Free Iraq!

bonkey

Here's what I think about it....

1) You would most likely see the same celebration if it had been the Iraqi's winning, only then it would be most likely covered only on Arabic news stations.

2) I'm sure its a great comfort to the dead and wounded that the lucky ones are out dancing in the streets. Obviously the number of those is insignificant - whats important is that there were crowds on the street, right?

3) Why is it that every single claimed victory and "good will" media which gets released during a war has the "pro-war types" going "well, what do you anti-war types think now...."??? Newsflash - the war isnt over. The were welcomed into Somalia with open arms as well...would have you been saying "see, they really like us and we're right to be here" in that case too, despite what happened later???

5) I dont think any anti-war protestor ever doubted that there would be a large number of people who would be happy to be liberated. What most people said is one or more of :
- the ultimate success or failure cannot be known, and this jeoperdises an entire region (at least).
- enforced regime change, disguised under any amount of popular consent, is still enforced regime change, and is not an acceptable way for modern nations to behave.
- If this war is so right and its cause so just, why is the US lining itself up for grabbing all it can in the coming years. Is this the New Economy - smash a resource-rich country to pieces then make sure that all the rebuilding contracts go to your own people.

The US initially talked about "footing the bill" for this war because they were the ones who intiated it. Now they say the international Humanitarian agencies (including the UN) should be involved in the aid side (i.e. the international community should foot the humanitarian bill) while the rebuilding should be limited to US companies for "security reasons".

Would you like me to continue?

jc

yankinlk

You wont see many anti-war posters here...unless they are eating crow.

This is taken from the NY times.

A Sinister Past Comes to Light at an Iraqi Post

April 7, 2003
By JIM DWYER



KARBALA, Iraq, April 6 - To the Americans who arrived by
tank and helicopter and Humvee, this city 45 miles south of Baghdad began to reveal itself today in hints of a sinister past in captured military archives.

Inside a bombed military headquarters, soldiers found
strips of film negatives showing images of people who
appeared to have met violent deaths. The images, shown to a reporter, appeared to document injuries on the bodies of three different people. Scores of other negatives kept in the same cabinet appeared to show ordinary work scenes.

Down the hall was a room with hundreds, perhaps thousands,
of dossiers, with photographs stapled to each one. Someone
had made an unsuccessful effort to burn the files before fleeing.

In still another room was electronic equipment that could
be used for eavesdropping, explained Capt. Jim Phillips as
he led a reporter through the remains of the building.

During the day, four Iraqis came forward to tell soldiers
that they had been held prisoner in a jail inside the
compound, Captain Phillips said. Other prisoners apparently were held inside the military headquarters. He pointed to a false wall, and rooms in the basement that were about 25 feet by 25 feet.

"One guy says they would cram 100 people in those rooms," Captain Phillips said.

These are early days, but the documents and photographs
found here suggest that a gradual process of unearthing the deeds of Saddam Hussein during his 24-year rule has begun. From the documents, some accounting of the degree of his brutality should eventually take form.

Led by the Second Brigade of the 101st Airborne Division, American military forces effectively occupied the entire city of Karbala this morning, the start of the second day of a lopsided battle against scattered paramilitary forces.


One American soldier died late Saturday from a gunshot
wound, and seven others were injured. No count of Iraqi
dead was available. By late in the day, the percussion of artillery fire had eased. Across the city, people emerged from their homes, and some shops reopened.

Along rural roads east of town, a procession of people on
foot, bicycle, and donkey cart all carried the same cargo: fistfuls of live, though not lively, chickens.

A few of the travelers even used the birds as white flags, waving them at American troops.

Chickens that expired in the heat, which hit 106 degrees
today, were discarded by the dozens along the roads. The spectacle was mildly baffling, with more than a few Americans assuming that transporting live chickens was some sort of custom on Sundays.

Not at all, one of the residents explained to military officials.

"He told us that one of Saddam Hussein's sons owns a
chicken farm or something down the road, and the people
went in there and liberated themselves some chickens," said Col. Joe Anderson, the commander of the Second Brigade.

In a spectacle that was slightly more familiar, because it
was staged just a few days ago in the city of Najaf,
American troops all but demolished a prominent statue of
Saddam Hussein. They cut the legs off the statue and tied
ropes to it, and locals pulled it down.

In Najaf, the soldiers had tied demolition explosives to a similar statue, then stepped aside to permit a former colonel in the Iraqi Army to detonate the bombs.

The greeting in the city for the troops was often warm, but once again included demands that the Americans restart the electrical plants and make sure water could again flow. A group of residents petitioned for a meeting with military commanders to discuss law and order in the city.

Once again, throngs of people were out on the streets to
greet the troops or gawk at them. "Good Mister," young boys
and men shouted.

They wanted to know if the Americans in their town would go
to Baghdad, and what was happening there. Most of the
soldiers had less idea than the townspeople about
developments in Baghdad because they are cut off from most news.

A merchant who called himself Muhammad approached a
military captain and then a reporter. He asked that the Americans take steps quickly to assert control over the city, saying that order was on the verge of breaking down. There had been some looting, he reported, and the need for water and electricity was urgent. Both had been unavailable for about three days.

He also had a plea for mercy for the remaining fighters.


"These people who are fighting, they come from Syria,
Jordan, Yemen and Egypt," Muhammad said. "They are in a
wrong situation. They told them in Syria and those places
that the Americans were destroying buildings, killing
people and children. Saddam and his helpers told them
Americans are killing Iraqi people. They get guns, and they
are fighting America.

Wook

as all anti-war people here said , against the war, against sadam.
but to claim happy iraq people as your personal victory in trying to show us why this war is-was justified is just plain silly.
do you think we don't want this war to end ?
For us it should not even have started.

shotamoose

Maybe those people are celebrating because they hope that since the US/UK now occupy large parts of Iraq, they will stop bombing it. Maybe they're celebrating in hope that the sanctions that have strangled and starved them for so many years will be lifted. Maybe some of them are celebrating because they realise they'd better look happy or they'll be carted off like thousands of their neighbours already have been. And I'm sure that many are celebrating the end of a murderous regime. Iraqis want to believe in a better future, like anyone else, and I'd say they find it hard to believe the future can be any worse than the past.

You can't just focus on civilian welcomes as the only valid expression of popular will while ignoring the continuing resistance and resentment of so many ordinary Iraqis. As far as I can see, the welcomes seem to be limited to areas actually under occupation (albeit partly because they fear the old regime) while 'coalition' soldiers freely admit that angry and resentful Iraqis are not confined only to areas under Saddam's thumb.

I've not changed my mind on even one of the reasons I opposed this war for. It's still illegitimate; it still encourages regimes everywhere to pursue WMD as a 'pre-emptive deterrent'; it still undermines the UN and the very idea of international approval for military action; it has still completed the destruction of Iraq, with the mostly likely outcome being that the conquerors will contribute very little of their own money to the reconstruction but will instead use the proceeds of Iraqi oil sales and privatise like hell; and it was never about terrorism or WMD or liberation.

The 'pro-war' camp might have a case for celebrating when Iraq has a reconstructed and fully democratic society. Until then, they're praising a conquest, not a liberation.

Beruthiel

Originally posted by shotamoose
You can't just focus on civilian welcomes as the only valid expression of popular will while ignoring the continuing resistance and resentment of so many ordinary Iraqis.

agreed, many hundreds of innocent men, women and children have died or are brutally injured - sometimes whole families have been wiped out - this war has not been a success for these people - one woman on TV last night, found her dead son after 12 long days of searching for him, I cannot begin to imagine the hell and anguish she has been through - I am not interested in people who say it's for the greater good - tell it to that mother, see what she replies

bonkey

Originally posted by Beruthiel
I am not interested in people who say it's for the greater good - tell it to that mother, see what she replies

Yup.

We could just as well argue that 9/11 was "for the greater good" because it is what sparked off this ongoing action against oppression, tyrants, dictators, and anyone else we feel like calling terrorists this week.

I'm sure telling New Yorkers, or Americans in general, that 9/11 was a good thing because of the improvements it will have catalysed will really go down well. Not.

But somehow, this logic does apply to the bombing of Iraq. The hundreds dead and thousands injured (to date) are not important because here its for the greater good....and thats different.

Eating crow? Yeah...sure....

To me, this is a bit like a doctor who elects to do non-essential, potentially lethal or crippling surgery, without consulting the patient and then boasting how successful it was afterwards.

Thats the only crow I have to swallow - pro-war enthusiasts crowing on about how good a thing this avoidable war has been because it hasnt turned out as bad as it could have (even though its not over and such statements are premature).

jc

bonkey

Oh, I've modified the poll to include some options which I think give people a more balanced set of options.

Incidentally, I'm curious....

if the Iraqi's werent out welcoming the troops, would all the pro-war supporters be admitting that this is proof the war was wrong all along?

If not, then consider why their presence has encouraged you to vote that this shows the war was right.

jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Seems a bit strange that they'd welcome the colonial imperialist forces of the aggressor doesn't it?

Not at all. I would too in their position, but then again I'm an opportunist.

yankinlk

Originally posted by bonkey
Oh, I've modified the poll to include some options which I think give people a more balanced set of options.

Incidentally, I'm curious....

if the Iraqi's werent out welcoming the troops, would all the pro-war supporters be admitting that this is proof the war was wrong all along?
jc

Yeah, I noticed the yes vote has only recvd one more vote since you modified it - dodgy poll to begin with. But its also interesting to see the votes being cast nearly equally up and down the line so far. It goes to show that this war does not have one reason (like oil) that this war is both good and bad at the same time. This war should happen and not happen at the same time. The arguments against and for this war are equally compelling but all the arguing is played out ad nuaseum.

There is very little difference to what Hitler and saddam have done to their peoples and there were plenty of people that didnt (and still dont) believe atrocites were ever committed by Hitler...so im glad those of you that sit back and want to debate for weeks/months/years the reasons for the war have absolutely no power to change it - for god sake it will be over before you stop arguing about it.

bertiebowl

Just wondering what all you anti-war people think of the ordinary Iraqi civilians celebrating their liberation.

It kinda reminds me of Northern Ireland circa 1969 when the catholics celebrated the arrival of british troops.

Only a couple of months later those troops weren't so popular.............

Gordon

/offtopic - bonkey if you ever go into politics you have my vote

bonkey

Originally posted by yankinlk
that this war is both good and bad at the same time. This war should happen and not happen at the same time. The arguments against and for this war are equally compelling but all the arguing is played out ad nuaseum.

Reminds me of a line from A Time to Kill. Lucien (Donald Sutherland), when discussing the case, says something like :

This is a fascinating case. You could win this case and justice will prevail but ... you could lose this case, and justice will prevail.

Originally posted by Gordon
/offtopic - bonkey if you ever go into politics you have my vote [/b]

Heh. Thanks, I think

jc

Mighty_Mouse

Just on a side note. Read back the arguments that have progressed to date re the war in Iraq.

In general pro-war come across as staunch, hard-core, slightyly dumb and very agressive. Whereas the anti-war come across as as articulate, informed and generally more impressive.

I was a netral (which i'm not) i'd deffo swing down on the anti-war side.

Maby its just me.

Im new to this site but the pro-war guys are losing this debate.

Mighty_Mouse

how dodgy is that poll ,by the way. refuse to vote on it

yankinlk

dodgy becasue it was changed mid way whne pro war was winning.

mike65

Originally posted by Mighty_Mouse
Just on a side note. Read back the arguments that have progressed to date re the war in Iraq.

In general pro-war come across as staunch, hard-core, slightyly dumb and very agressive. Whereas the anti-war come across as as articulate, informed and generally more impressive.

I was a netral (which i'm not) i'd deffo swing down on the anti-war side.

Maby its just me.

Im new to this site but the pro-war guys are losing this debate.

Talk about a partial not to say deluded reading of events....dont confuse epic anti war posts as being substantive posts they're often just l-o-n-g! (and wrong by the way).

Mike.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by yankinlk
dodgy becasue it was changed mid way whne pro war was winning.

If you ask the right questions, you'll always get a poll to agree with your own viewpoint, as "Yes, Prime Minister" once demonstrated:

The PM has just gotten the results of an opinion poll. It says that 67% people would be in favor of reintroducing conscription. Sir Humphrey asks Bernard to get another opinion poll done in which the results are the opposite. Bernard can't understand how people can be both for and against conscription. So, Sir Humphrey demonstrates by quizzing him...

"Mr. Woolley, are you worried about the rise in crime among teenagers?"
"Yes"
"Do you think there is lack of discipline and vigorous training in our Comprehensive Schools?"
"Yes"
"Do you think young people welcome some structure and leadership in their lives?"
"Yes"
"Do they respond to a challenge?"
"Yes"
"Might you be in favour of reintroducing National Service?"
"Yes"

Now onto Survey 2

"Mr. Woolley are you worried about the danger of war?"
"Yes"
"Are you unhappy about the growth of armaments?"
"Yes"
"Do you think there's a danger in giving young people guns and teaching them how to kill?"
"Yes"
"Do you think its wrong to force people to take up arms against their will?"
"Yes"
"Would you oppose the reintroduction of National Service?"
"Yes"

http://www.workinghumor.com/ad_humor.shtml

So it's hardly surprising that the original poll would have relected the view of its author... :rolleyes:

Elmo

I think the war was wrong because:-

American companies have already signed up to control some if not all of the oil fields in Iraq.

George Bush was doing it for revenge and greed.

While the French said they would veto a move to war, the American said that they would go to war anyway.

If the UN and the large countries had worked with Iraq then maybe over the past ten years Iraq would be a free a democratic state.

Now that the war has begun (and change the landscape of International politics) we now must wish that American will win the war otherwise, god only knows.

And yes the poll is pro-war. Nice Propaganda

Clintons Cat

There was a general on r4 this morning musing over the possibility of reinstating "elements" of Sadamns Police force and local Bathist apperatchiks to oversee the maintenence of "law and order" after the inhabitants went of Basra went on a looting spree.

Sorry but i thought this was a war to Liberate the people of iraq,not buy new uniforms for Sadamns Goons.

Well consider that in 6 months Iraq will be forgotten, and the world will focus on some new conflict. Iraqi troops that used to follow Saddam, will probably slaughter the population that rose to help the allies. And nobody will care.

Its very easy to be pro-war, and pro-regime-change when the worlds largest superpower has an interest, but most people will ignore Iraq, once the US/UK decides that its been "liberated". Shame really, since the Iraqi people will probably face more death & destruction than before the Invasion.

This is all speculation, of course. Just like before the invasion everyone said that Saddam had WMD's... :rolleyes:

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by bonkey
You would most likely see the same celebration if it had been the Iraqi's winning, only then it would be most likely covered only on Arabic news stations.

Why do you think Western news outlets wouldn’t show such scenes?

I'm sure its a great comfort to the dead and wounded that the lucky ones are out dancing in the streets. Obviously the number of those is insignificant - whats important is that there were crowds on the street, right?

I don’t follow your point.

Why is it that every single claimed victory and "good will" media which gets released during a war has the "pro-war types" going "well, what do you anti-war types think now...."???

I haven’t noticed that happening, either here or anywhere else. But the progress of the war so far has certainly disproved the pre-war predictions of mass civilian casualties, a Vietnam-style quagmire and massive popular opposition to the invasion.

Newsflash - the war isnt over. The were welcomed into Somalia with open arms as well...would have you been saying "see, they really like us and we're right to be here" in that case too, despite what happened later???

Yes I would, and I don’t remember anyone objecting to it at the time. In hindsight you might say that the Americans made mistakes, but I still don’t know even then how great the opposition was to the Americans in Somalia. Don’t forget that the “Black Hawk Down” events took place in a very pro-Aidid area of Mogadishu. Were they representative of the whole country?

I dont think any anti-war protestor ever doubted that there would be a large number of people who would be happy to be liberated.

Well either that or they’re just hypocrites who don’t give a toss about human rights.

We could just as well argue that 9/11 was "for the greater good" because it is what sparked off this ongoing action against oppression, tyrants, dictators, and anyone else we feel like calling terrorists this week.

I'm sure telling New Yorkers, or Americans in general, that 9/11 was a good thing because of the improvements it will have catalysed will really go down well. Not.

But somehow, this logic does apply to the bombing of Iraq. The hundreds dead and thousands injured (to date) are not important because here its for the greater good....and thats different.

But who could honestly consider 9/11 to have been for the greater good? No one. In contrast, were accidental civilian deaths in the liberation of Europe from Nazism for the greater good? Of course.

Oh, I've modified the poll to include some options which I think give people a more balanced set of options.

Quite right too. But I think you should change Option 5 to “They may indeed be happy, but I still don’t give a toss about those towelheads and the regime they have to live under.”

Incidentally, I'm curious....

if the Iraqi's weren’t out welcoming the troops, would all the pro-war supporters be admitting that this is proof the war was wrong all along?

Yes. Well I would anyway. I don’t believe this war could have been won if the vast majority of Iraqis didn’t support it.

Originally posted by Wook
but to claim happy iraq people as your personal victory in trying to show us why this war is-was justified is just plain silly.

Why?

Originally posted by shotamoose
Maybe those people are celebrating because they hope that since the US/UK now occupy large parts of Iraq, they will stop bombing it.

Maybe, but I sincerely doubt they’re that ****ing moronic. Do you seriously believe if they were actually opposed to the invasion they would be celebrating their defeat?

Maybe they're celebrating in hope that the sanctions that have strangled and starved them for so many years will be lifted.

Another good reason to support the war.

Maybe some of them are celebrating because they realise they'd better look happy or they'll be carted off like thousands of their neighbours already have been.

What are you talking about?

You can't just focus on civilian welcomes as the only valid expression of popular will while ignoring the continuing resistance and resentment of so many ordinary Iraqis.

What continuing resistance and resentment? It only seems to be the fedayeen and Ba’ath party diehards, those with a vested interest in the regime, who are resisiting.

The 'pro-war' camp might have a case for celebrating when Iraq has a reconstructed and fully democratic society. Until then, they're praising a conquest, not a liberation.

OK, I’ll leave the celebrating to the Iraqis then.

Originally posted by Beruthiel
agreed, many hundreds of innocent men, women and children have died or are brutally injured - sometimes whole families have been wiped out - this war has not been a success for these people - one woman on TV last night, found her dead son after 12 long days of searching for him, I cannot begin to imagine the hell and anguish she has been through - I am not interested in people who say it's for the greater good - tell it to that mother, see what she replies

Do you ever stop to think about the far greater number who have been killed, and will be killed, under this disgusting regime?

Éomer of Rohan

Of course the poll is biased - especially the little 'Yes, that's it' comment. Did we expect any less from Biffa Bacon? Of course not. He is the guy who welcomed the death of the United Nations alongf with certain other pro-war posters. And I would ask Mike to keep his snide little comments to himself knowing that generally my posts can be very long, though substantive and certainly not wrong.

Zukustious

When the war is over there will probably be overall less death in Iraq. Maybe it's god to just get the dying over with. But keep in mind that quote that was said by someone I don't know:

It's always the victors who write history.

When the Americans win, they will make Saddam out to be a hell of a lot more evil than he was.

Also, I want someone to tell me who said that quote.

Sparks

Zukustious,
A loser
Also, it's good to recall that as bad as SH was, he was actually better than what he replaced, as hard as that is to concieve of.
Thing is, this is a lot like Afghanistan. There, eliminating the Taliban was a boon to humanity - abandoning the promise to rebuild the Afghan nation was a crime.

Éomer of Rohan

Why do you think Western news outlets wouldn’t show such scenes?

For balatantly propagandistic pro-American reasons.

I'm sure its a great comfort to the dead and wounded that the lucky ones are out dancing in the streets. Obviously the number of those is insignificant - whats important is that there were crowds on the street, right?

I don’t follow your point.

I think the point is well made; the number of dead are being ignored. On both sides - 'Coalition' and Iraqi, the men and women who died fighting should have been getting an education or having families and other normal things but because of the warmonger in the White House, they are dead and no amount of people appearing cheerful on the streets of Basra and/or Baghdad is going to change that nor are they going to change the fact that when the realities of this conquest sink in, the US will simply have made one more enemy except this time without an excuse to 'intervene'

I haven’t noticed that happening, either here or anywhere else. But the progress of the war so far has certainly disproved the pre-war predictions of mass civilian casualties, a Vietnam-style quagmire and massive popular opposition to the invasion.

One death from such an ignoble campaign is unacceptable. And as to mass opposition to the war, the governments simply ignored that mass opposition. In a country of 52 million, when 2 million turn out to protest in the capital city, with more across the country, you might think the government would notice. Nope they didn't. As to the US, I think 500,000 in Washington DC alone says it all really.

Well either that or they’re just hypocrites who don’t give a toss about human rights.

This is ridiculous in itself. How a pro-war supporter can condemn an anti-war protestor for not caring about human rights when the human rights being breached are generally those of the Iraqis being murdered by the US not to mention the incompetence of the US in terms of the number of Brits they have killed.

But who could honestly consider 9/11 to have been for the greater good? No one. In contrast, were accidental civilian deaths in the liberation of Europe from Nazism for the greater good? Of course.

I diagree. Do you honestly believe that the firestorming of Dresden or the destruction of Cologne from the air were warranted? They were not. The allies would have beaten Hitler had these taken place or not - neither were major production centres for the war effort. You have obviously never experienced proper loss due to such activities. I have and I say you are wrong.

Maybe they're celebrating in hope that the sanctions that have strangled and starved them for so many years will be lifted.

Sanctions kept in place by what nations? Oh yes that's right. The ones presently bombing Iraq into the ground.

Maybe some of them are celebrating because they realise they'd better look happy or they'll be carted off like thousands of their neighbours already have been.

What are you talking about?

I think it is fairly obvious what he is talking about Biffa - that the invading forces or forces of occupation, now that the war is almost 'won' will not take kindly to interanl opposition, violent or peaceful.

Do you ever stop to think about the far greater number who have been killed, and will be killed, under this disgusting regime?

Do you ever think that two wrongs do not make a right? That more deaths will somehow make right the deaths that have gone before? I think that is absurd.

mike65

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
And I would ask Mike to keep his snide little comments to himself knowing that generally my posts can be very long, though substantive and certainly not wrong.

Facinating, how did you know I had you in mind....?
In my original draft I even named-checked you but then I thought "nah, that would'nt be right, as he's not the only one"

Certainly not wrong eh? No room for doubt in the mind of Eomer of Rohan, that must be nice.

Mike.

Éomer of Rohan

Room for change and adaptation as new information becomes available. Whether you had me in mind or not, my point was obviously well made then.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

shotamoose

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

Maybe, but I sincerely doubt they’re that ****ing moronic. Do you seriously believe if they were actually opposed to the invasion they would be celebrating their defeat?

It's pragmatism rather than, er, moronism. The times are too dangerous right now to be a purist, you're better off just backing the winning side.

Another good reason to support the war.

And another good reason that people will greet the end of the war with relief even if they hate the people who imposed the sanctions. Say someone douses you with petrol, sets you on fire and then puts it out. You'll be relieved the ordeal is over, but you'd be entitled to your suspicions as to their motives and their actions in the future.

What are you talking about?

I'm talking about the young Iraqi men being rounded up by soldiers in every occupied town. Some militia or Ba'athists or soldiers in plain clothes, some just in plain clothes.

What continuing resistance and resentment? It only seems to be the fedayeen and Ba’ath party diehards, those with a vested interest in the regime, who are resisiting.

And the ordinary soldiers in Baghdad, and the people who've arrived to fight from Egypt, Sudan and elsewhere. Since they're facing overwhelming odds, they might actually believe in their cause - not pro-Saddam maybe, but more likely anti-coalition.

And coalition forces are indeed encountering resentment, as
this story shows:

The road into Baghdad was lined with thousands of people. Some were waving, some were frowning and some appeared unsure whether to wave or frown. Others were too busy looting even to look up....

Many of the Iraqis were quick to give the thumbs-up to soldiers they met, chanting that Saddam was bad and that Bush was good. One young man stamped the ground as he shouted the name of the Iraqi leader with derision. Theatrically, he then withdrew a 250-dinar note from his wallet and spat on President Saddam's picture.

What do the Iraqis really think of the arrival of the Americans? General Mattis said he had been delighted to see the crowds of cheering civilians, but then again the people of Cambodia had initially cheered the Khmer Rouge when they rolled into Phnom Penh. Are they really cheering when the troops are not there to watch?

It is the million-dollar question, but the answer is probably unsatisfying. Here, as in the rest of Iraq, some people appear pleased, while others are not. Most hope it will improve their lives. Many are angry that they or their homes have been damaged by Allied bombs. The full picture will probably only become apparent as efforts get under way to rebuild Iraq.

So some are happy, some unhappy. And these, of course, are only the ones who are left after Saddam, Bush and Blair have had their way.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by shotamoose
So some are happy, some unhappy. And these, of course, are only the ones who are left after Saddam, Bush and Blair have had their way.

More importantly, who cares whether they are happy or unhappy? Since when have their views been important?

Wook

Originally posted by daveirl
(continues) Amazing how the pro-war movement can say that millions upon millions of protestors worldwide don't count, but that a couple of thousand on the streets of Basra does?

Good point !, maybe they should liberate our ass in return, get rid of those croked politicians

bonkey

Originally posted by yankinlk
dodgy becasue it was changed mid way whne pro war was winning.

Care to explain the logic behind that?

I added two options when 9 votes in total had been cast. I added them because the vote was skewed to a pro-war slant in the first place.

Orriginally, it allowed you to support the war with no other jsutification, but to be anti-war you had to vote for one of three stances - two of which are not exactly written in what you could call "neutral language".

I added the "no, for another reason" option, and also decided to add the "undecided - Ill make my mind up when we see more" option, as that was missing too.

Since then, a total of 38 votes have been case (excluding my own). 26 of them have been for these two options. Just over 70%.

If anything, I "unskewed" the vote by adding in options that were clearly missing.

If anyone thinks this - or any poll - was altered by us politics mods because one side or another was winning, then you'd be sorely mistaken.

jc

Slutmonkey57b

Why do you think Western news outlets wouldn’t show such scenes?

For balatantly propagandistic pro-American reasons.

Funny, they've seemed quite happy so far to show footage of propagandistic ANTI-American peace rallies.
But obviously, the explaination is that the media are incapapable of showing the "real" truth, as opposed to, say, what might be happening in front of them.

The western media are far too obsessed about getting one over on their commercial competitors to worry about which government they are sucking up to - witness Sky News' failure to mention that John Simpson had been caught up in the friendly fire incident that killed Kurds in the north.

I haven’t noticed that happening, either here or anywhere else. But the progress of the war so far has certainly disproved the pre-war predictions of mass civilian casualties, a Vietnam-style quagmire and massive popular opposition to the invasion.

One death from such an ignoble campaign is unacceptable. And as to mass opposition to the war, the governments simply ignored that mass opposition. In a country of 52 million, when 2 million turn out to protest in the capital city, with more across the country, you might think the government would notice. Nope they didn't. As to the US, I think 500,000 in Washington DC alone says it all really.

Is one death from ignoring the problem any less ignoble? No. Please, to those who harp on about the tradgedy of war, wake up. Yes deaths among the civilian population are terrible. Yes the mother whose child is killed will not thank his (even inadvertant) killers. This is such a non sequiter its only purpose in bringing it up is to conduct a moral seige of sentimentality. The mother of a child dragged off and tortured isn't going to thank his captors either.

Don't pretend that your objection is a principled one based on a love of human rights - it isn't. For every avoidable death currently happening in Iraq, there are a hundred avoidable deaths happening elsewhere in the world. Only the other day Mugabe rounded up 300 political opponants and had them "disappeared". Where was the "principled" stand of the great President Chirac against this illegal, immoral, and evil man? Uuuuuhhh. Hmmm. The absolute crux of the anti-war argument to me is this, and it is one that is the greatest indictment of western society and of its terminal decline:

Don't get your hands dirty.

The truth is that we in the west don't really care who gets murdered or who gets tortured or who gets bombed - provided we're not the ones doing it. What really bothers the anti-war protesters is that westerners are having to get their hands dirty - it might end up being the right thing. It might end up being the wrong thing. But the simple basic code has been broken: Don't get involved. It's much better to leave things and sort it out once its all calmed down. Who cares how many were done for in the killing fields? What matters is that we principled westerners cared about it and got involved - after it was all finished.

There have been thousands of casualties. But there are thousands of casualties elsewhere. 1200 cases of SARS in the Far East. 10 Villages burnt to the ground and the inhabitants massacred in tribal violence in Nigeria. 600 bodies found in a mass grave in Bosnia. But that's ok because we principled westerners aren't involved. For either good or bad intentions. Not Involved is what's important.

What's equally important is that those who worry about the "consequences" of the iraqi war recognise those worries for what they are: the idea that the problems engulfing the middle east will spread to the west. Not that the problems will be made worse for the people who are already living with them - but that we in the comfortable west might have to live with them also. Again, this is not an argument that paints many of the anti-war persuasion in a saintly glow. It merely exposes hipocricy.

Slutmonkey57b

Amazing how the pro-war movement can say that millions upon millions of protestors worldwide don't count, but that a couple of thousand on the streets of Basra does?

The anti-war argument goes that westerners have no right to interfere or impose on the iraqis, and that more attention should be paid to what the Iraqis want rather than what's good for Bush's cronies. Therefore what the Iraqi people think should, ABSOLUTELY, outweigh what the punter on the streets of Neasden thinks. Because your objections are supposedly there to protect these Iraqi people. As opposed to your own selfish interests.

originally posted by Eomar...
The allies would have beaten Hitler had these taken place or not - neither were major production centres for the war effort. You have obviously never experienced proper loss due to such activities. I have and I say you are wrong.

I'll make the obvious retort to this particular post as nobody else has:

You have not been the victim of carpet bombing in the second world war. Don't be ridiculous. Define your previous experience of either WWII carpet bombing or modern precision guided asymmetrical command-and-control based warfare.

I wasn't against this war for any humanitarian reasons. TBH, i didn't care too much abt the people who died in the war. Its a war, so people will die. However, i was against this war, because it was so pointless.

The Pro-war camp, have come out with many reasons for the invasion of Iraq, and not one of them has stood up to any inspection, with the possible exception of WMD's. If the world really cared abt the Iraqi people, then Saddam would have been deposed 12 years ago, or arrested after the chemical attack on the Kurds.

Simple answer is, that as long as its not affecting our own countries directly it doesn't matter. We might shake our heads in disgust when some journalist brings it out, but we forget it relatively quickly.

However, i have still to be convinced that this war, is just. Nobody has given me any reasons that justify this blatent attack on another nation. The coalition have broken all the unofficial rules, that they've been building since the cold war, in invading anothers nations borders. As far as i'm aware, there was no formal declaration of war by the US against Iraq. These are some of the issues i have with this war. I see it as being unnecessary, and in fact a stupid move that will inflame the Middle East.

Will you be so happy to have supported this war, when all western states despite their original stance in this war, are hit by Islamic fundelmentalist Terrorism? I'm sure you'll use it as justification for the invasion, despite the fact that this invasion will be what created the discord in the 1st place.

A box of snakes has been opened here, and all your pro-war claims have not justified the war to me. That is why i'm against this war.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Slutmonkey57b

You've just confirmed every point I've made about the hipocricy and self-centredness of the anti-war protest.

This war is what it is - human existance in action. Either good can come out of it or bad, but it is messy and uncertain and contradictory and unpleasant - what people really want when they say "Not in my name" is "Scr!w the other guy - I'm going home."

Don't pretend that you're any more principled than someone who says "cool! they just blew up that building with a massive bomb!". You're just attempting to be less obvious.

Slutmonkey57b - as i've said many times. I'm am not part of the anti-war camp. I'm not against all wars. I'm just against this one.

Don't pretend that you're any more principled than someone who says "cool! they just blew up that building with a massive bomb!". You're just attempting to be less obvious.

crap. If i think its cool, i'll say so. I have nothing to prove here. I don't need any respect from you. For all i know you're just some spotty little knacker, that has occassional internet access in the local prison. I describe what i think, not what i think you want to hear. Otherwise i wouldn't get into so many arguments with Sand, and Éomer.

This war is what it is - human existance in action. Either good can come out of it or bad, but it is messy and uncertain and contradictory and unpleasant - what people really want when they say "Not in my name" is "Scr!w the other guy - I'm going home."

War exists. I have no problem with that. However, i have problems for the reasons for war. There was no justification for this war, and if you think there was, you're fooling yourself.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Clintons Cat
There was a general on r4 this morning musing over the possibility of reinstating "elements" of Sadamns Police force and local Bathist apperatchiks to oversee the maintenence of "law and order" after the inhabitants went of Basra went on a looting spree.

Sorry but i thought this was a war to Liberate the people of iraq,not buy new uniforms for Sadamns Goons.

What have the musings of a general on the radio got to do with anything? You’re really clutching at straws here aren’t you?

Originally posted by klaz
Well consider that in 6 months Iraq will be forgotten, and the world will focus on some new conflict. Iraqi troops that used to follow Saddam, will probably slaughter the population that rose to help the allies. And nobody will care.

Its very easy to be pro-war, and pro-regime-change when the worlds largest superpower has an interest, but most people will ignore Iraq, once the US/UK decides that its been "liberated". Shame really, since the Iraqi people will probably face more death & destruction than before the Invasion.

This is all speculation, of course. Just like before the invasion everyone said that Saddam had WMD's...:rolleyes:

Just like before the invasion everyone said it would be another Vietnam, the Arab street would rise up, the Iraqis would put up a stubborn resistance, hundreds of thousands of civilians would die…blah blah blah. How many wars do you people have to lose before you cop on to reality?

Originally posted by Zukustious
When the Americans win, they will make Saddam out to be a hell of a lot more evil than he was.

Yes, they’ll probably make up stories about him invading other countries, killing millions, using chemical weapons in campaigns of genocide, terrorising and torturing his own population blah blah blah.

Originally posted by Sparks
Also, it's good to recall that as bad as SH was, he was actually better than what he replaced, as hard as that is to concieve of.

a. In what way was he better?
b. Even if that were true, which it’s not, who gives a ****?

Thing is, this is a lot like Afghanistan. There, eliminating the Taliban was a boon to humanity - abandoning the promise to rebuild the Afghan nation was a crime.

More sick-in-the-head anti-Americanism. There’s only so much the US can do to make that country a fully-functioning democracy, but of course, any shortcomings whatsoever will be used as a stick to beat the Americans with.

But can I take it that you supported the war in Afghanistan then?

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
For balatantly propagandistic pro-American reasons.

I’m sick of all this “the meeja is biased” crap as well. If Iraqis were out on the streets celebrating a victory over the Americans you can be damned sure it would be shown on Western TV.

And as to mass opposition to the war, the governments simply ignored that mass opposition. In a country of 52 million, when 2 million turn out to protest in the capital city, with more across the country, you might think the government would notice. Nope they didn't. As to the US, I think 500,000 in Washington DC alone says it all really.

The governments did notice, but thankfully, they pressed on regardless. Anyway, I was referring to predictions of mass opposition among Iraqis.

This is ridiculous in itself. How a pro-war supporter can condemn an anti-war protestor for not caring about human rights when the human rights being breached are generally those of the Iraqis being murdered by the US not to mention the incompetence of the US in terms of the number of Brits they have killed.

I don’t apologise for saying it: Anti-war = anti-human rights.

Do you honestly believe that the firestorming of Dresden or the destruction of Cologne from the air were warranted? They were not. The allies would have beaten Hitler had these taken place or not - neither were major production centres for the war effort.

To be honest I’d probably agree with you there – they weren’t warranted. I was thinking more of the civilian deaths in occupied Europe rather than in Germany.

Sanctions kept in place by what nations? Oh yes that's right. The ones presently bombing Iraq into the ground.

a. Iraq is not being bombed into the ground.
b. The suffering of Iraqi civilians was caused by Saddam, not sanctions.
c. It’s still another good reason to support the war.

I think it is fairly obvious what he is talking about Biffa - that the invading forces or forces of occupation, now that the war is almost 'won' will not take kindly to interanl opposition, violent or peaceful.

Please stop deluding yourself.

Do you ever think that two wrongs do not make a right? That more deaths will somehow make right the deaths that have gone before? I think that is absurd.

No two wrongs do not make a right but the Americans have not done anything wrong.

Originally posted by daveirl
Amazing how the pro-war movement can say that millions upon millions of protestors worldwide don't count, but that a couple of thousand on the streets of Basra does?

The protestors worldwide don’t count because they don’t have to live under Saddam’s regime.

Originally posted by shotamoose
It's pragmatism rather than, er, moronism. The times are too dangerous right now to be a purist, you're better off just backing the winning side.

But you seriously think they’d come out on the streets and celebrate? When and where has that ever happened before?

Say someone douses you with petrol, sets you on fire and then puts it out. You'll be relieved the ordeal is over, but you'd be entitled to your suspicions as to their motives and their actions in the future.

Saddam is the one who doused them in petrol and set them alight. The Americans are the one who put the fire out. Wouldn’t you thank them in that situation?

I'm talking about the young Iraqi men being rounded up by soldiers in every occupied town. Some militia or Ba'athists or soldiers in plain clothes, some just in plain clothes.

I saw one report of this happening – it was in Basra where the British were trying to break the opposition with minimum use of force. Working on tip-offs from locals, they would storm the homes of Ba’ath party members and take them away. Do you have any source for the “thousands” you mention?

And the ordinary soldiers in Baghdad, and the people who've arrived to fight from Egypt, Sudan and elsewhere. Since they're facing overwhelming odds, they might actually believe in their cause - not pro-Saddam maybe, but more likely anti-coalition.

But are they ordinary soldiers or are they those with a vested interest in the regime?

And coalition forces are indeed encountering resentment, as this story shows:

The link doesn’t work, but from what you’ve quoted all I can see is a lefty reporter putting an anti-war slant on people celebrating their freedom.

Just like before the invasion everyone said it would be another Vietnam, the Arab street would rise up, the Iraqis would put up a stubborn resistance, hundreds of thousands of civilians would die…blah blah blah. How many wars do you people have to lose before you cop on to reality?

I haven't lost any wars. Hell i haven't been in any. Have you?
Where the **** does reality come into this. For someone advocating war, you have a very limited grasp as to how it works. War is based on estimates. There are NO certainties. They say that the best soldier is a lucky one.

Our suggestions that Iraq would turn into another vietnam, are not over yet. Remember vietnam was conquered, and it was only after the initial invasion that resistance rose. Also consider that these are estimates. Nobody said that they would definetly rise up. Unlike you we realise that everything is uncertain. Perhaps its time for you to be realistic, and stop playing with your toy plastic soldiers.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by klaz
I haven't lost any wars. Hell i haven't been in any. Have you?

Lose as in call wrong.

Where the **** does reality come into this.

No matter how many times America goes to war and wins, no matter how honourably America acts in its conduct, there are always lefties who will slander them and predict their doom.

Remember vietnam was conquered, and it was only after the initial invasion that resistance rose.

No it wasn't, Vietnam was split into the communist North and the capitalist South after the French left. The Americans got involved because South Vietnamese Commies, the Vietcong, were trying to overthrow the South's government. There was no invasion.

Lose as in call wrong

Call wrong? The war isn't over yet. Iraq has not been pacified. Nor has it been occupied. The people haven't had time to adjust to American occupation. Nor has the coalition proven any the reasons for this war.

No matter how many times America goes to war and wins, no matter how honourably America acts in its conduct, there are always lefties who will slander them and predict their doom.

I'm not a lefty, or is anbody that thinks the US is wrong, one of them? Should i call you a lefty simply because u disagree with me?

How honourably America acts? You have got to be joking. People are just used to seeing how dishonourably the US acts. Or are you going to tell me its ok, to ignore the Geneva Convention whenever its inconvenient? I haven't seen too many honourable acts by the US. Can you tell me of them, or rather do these honourable acts outweigh the dishonourable acts?

Predict their doom? Hardly. Everyone knew that they would win this war. It was just a matter of guessing whether they'd loose alot of troops in the process. **** Happens. We have been wrong so far, however, that doesn't mean all predictions are invalid. Likewise your predictions are just as invalid or valid as ours. Just because you're pro-war doesn't give you total control over who is correct.

No it wasn't, Vietnam was split into the communist North and the capitalist South after the French left. The Americans got involved because South Vietnamese Commies, the Vietcong, were trying to overthrow the South's government. There was no invasion

My apologies. Invasion was a bad choice of words. But considering the number of troops sent over by the US, invasion popped into my head. But the fact still stands, that the initial campaign made by the US was a success. It was afterwards that the **** hit the fan.

Lemming

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
<SNIP>Brainless Commentary</SNIP>

b. Even if that were true, which it’s not, who gives a ****?

Well, that just sums up your reasoning. Blinkered to say the least. I'm sure someone sitting at the receiving end of a 2000lb 'precision' bomb gives a sh*te.

More sick-in-the-head anti-Americanism. There’s only so much the US can do to make that country a fully-functioning democracy, but of course, any shortcomings whatsoever will be used as a stick to beat the Americans with.

Umm ... the US blew the crap out of what was left of the country (which wasn't much admittedly) BUT the US also promised to help rebuild the country and provide funding to get it running. So far it has practically ignored the new Afghani government, which had to go THEM to get some of the funding promised.

One more thing Biffa ... accusing people of being "anti-american" & "sick in the head" because they disagree with current american policy does not make them anti american nor sick in the head and only point's out the incapabilities of the accuser.

<SNIP>Brainless Commentary</SNIP>

I don’t apologise for saying it: Anti-war = anti-human rights.

WTF?????????? WHERE did you get that one from? I'm not going to even respond because:
a) I'm astounded
b) my response would get me banned.

<SNIP>Brainless Commentary</SNIP>

Please stop deluding yourself.

Sound words of self-advice me thinks

<SNIP>Brainless Commentary</SNIP>
No two wrongs do not make a right but the Americans have not done anything wrong.

See my above words on self-advice. Anything else I want to say regards that above quote will get me banned.

The protestors worldwide don’t count because they don’t have to live under Saddam’s regime.

Ah .. but we all share this earth, and we all have to live with the consequences somewhere down the line. Cause & Effect. Action & Reaction. The current US line on unilateralism is already having repercussions on the international community

<SNIP>Brainless Commentary</SNIP>

Saddam is the one who doused them in petrol and set them alight. The Americans are the one who put the fire out. Wouldn’t you thank them in that situation?

Thank them for what exactly? Handing the petrol and matches to Saddam and saying "knock yerself out wee man!" to him?

<SNIP>Brainless Commentary</SNIP>

But are they ordinary soldiers or are they those with a vested interest in the regime?

Might have been on bbc online, or perhaps skynews, but there as a paragraph in a news article there yesterday where a boy who had been captured in the fighting for Baghdad was asked why he fought such overwhelming force. His response was "It's my country". Argue that one please.

The link doesn’t work, but from what you’ve quoted all I can see is a lefty reporter putting an anti-war slant on people celebrating their freedom.

Ah yes ....... the good auld "Hawk" argument of "if you're not with me, you're against me and a hippy commie b*stard liberal".

Oh Pleeeeeease folks.
It's a bit rich of us, in the relative safety of this land to be arguing who called, this situation rightly or wrongly at this stage.
All I know, is i'm watching, people,lots of them dancing in the streets of Shia Baghdad clapping at U.S tanks and throwing flowers in front of them now on sky news.

That suggests to me that despite the awfull civilian tragedy, of this war, they, the people that matter have made up their minds, (despite, bunker busters and market bombs) regarding, which was the lesser of the two evils, and they are saying down down Sadam.
His catalog of atrocities over the last couple of decades aparently fresher in their minds than what the war has brought.
mm

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Man
All I know, is i'm watching, people,lots of them dancing in the streets of Shia Baghdad clapping at U.S tanks and throwing flowers in front of them now on sky news.

And, according to the BBC, they're calling "Saddam is the enemy of God". LOL. Islam has returned to Iraq

bonkey

I think many recent posters might do well to tone down their language a touch.

Stop getting self-righteous about each other's words, and look to your own.

I'd much rather not have to intervene "forcibly".

no matter how honourably America acts in its conduct

I think the point people are making is that the US is not sufficiently honourable in its conduct.

Numerous cases across numerous conflicts have bene brought up to show this. I'm not going to go reiterating them.

The US has a history of going into situations with what appear to be the best of intentions....typically fighting for freedom and democracy. Closer examination usually reveals ulterior motives as well - not necessarily a good or a bad thing.

Where the problem arises is where they act dishonourably, or even questionably, and discard it as "we were fighting for freedom, and bad things happen so just accept it".

Yes, bad things happen in war. The thing is that it is incumbent on all involved to ask of each situation "was this unavoidable and truly accidental".

The US have acted numerous times on what they term "credible intelligence". What amazes me is the number of times that "credible" turns out to be "inaccurate", and yet its still good enough to drop bombs on civilian shelters (Gulf War), residential areas (current war), and so on.

So we have "we're pretty sure that risking the lives of X civilians will allow us to remove person Y".

This is honourable? This is doing everything possible to minimise civilian fatalaties, casualties and suffering?

Its hard to say without access to any form of statistics (e.g. estimated level of certainty in the accuracy of the information pre-op vs statistical accuracy of the information post-op).

Such information would indicate if intelligence is frequently over-rated in its credibility, as well as showing what level of certainty is sufficient for an operation (possibly normalised against estimated civilian cost).

Unfortunately, this information is not available. I'm not saying that the US is hiding something, but it does mean that there is definitely scope for both points of view. Neither are brainless or stupid....its just a case of how high you set your standards in my book.

For me, and clearly for many others, the US military does not act with sufficient care at all times.....or, if it does, it under-publicises the extent of how much unintential damage it knows statistically that it will cause.

Neither of these are acceptably "honourable" to me to blindly accept the horrific costs just as "the reality of war".

jc

Lemming

Originally posted by bonkey
I think many recent posters might do well to tone down their language a touch.

Stop getting self-righteous about each other's words, and look to your own.

Noted

Where the problem arises is where they act dishonourably, or even questionably, and discard it as "we were fighting for freedom, and bad things happen so just accept it".

<SNIP>

Its hard to say without access to any form of statistics (e.g. estimated level of certainty in the accuracy of the information pre-op vs statistical accuracy of the information post-op).

<SNIP>

For me, and clearly for many others, the US military does not act with sufficient care at all times.....or, if it does, it under-publicises the extent of how much unintential damage it knows statistically that it will cause.

Neither of these are acceptably "honourable" to me to blindly accept the horrific costs just as "the reality of war".

jc

In point of the "honourability" of conduct, would people consider dropping 4 2000lb Bunker-Buster bombs on a restaurant in a civilian area, *hoping* it would take someone out to be a just and honourable act?

They essentially dropped 8000lb's of munitions designed to penetrate underground bunkers on a civilian structure "just to make sure". Smacks of carelessness and an utter disregard for their claimed mandate of minimising civilian casualties to me.

Kill the patient to kill the cancer.

bonkey

Originally posted by Lemming
They essentially dropped 8000lb's of munitions designed to penetrate underground bunkers on a civilian structure "just to make sure". Smacks of carelessness and an utter disregard for their claimed mandate of minimising civilian casualties to me.

This is exactly the type of situation I mean.

If they were certain (100% - an impossibility, I know) that the bunker was there, and contained a target of significant military value, then yes....I would say that it was a valid target. I accept the refusal to allow Human Shield defences to work, as long as the worth of the target is sufficient...which in this case would be true if Saddam was there.

However, what I would question is how certain they were, or what degree of "certainty" or "credibility" is needed in order to authorise such a mission. 99% certain? 90%? 75%?

How is such certainty measured, and is that method of measurement acceptably "honourable"?

jc

I think many recent posters might do well to tone down their language a touch

okies :ninja: