Braddock
Agitator
+916|6306|Éire
Living with Iraq's violence

This report from an Iraqi member of the BBC staff sums up a lot of the thinking behind why I disagreed with the Iraq war. We have all debated back and forth about the political decisions that were made to trigger this war and whether or not these decisions had any moral authority but when all is said and done and you break things down to the day to day reality of living in Iraq all that becomes immaterial.

The reality is that Saddam Hussein and his sons were morally corrupt tyrants who ruled with an iron fist. Many freedoms were curtailed under the Saddam reign such as freedom of the press or the right to express dissent, and infringements were punished severely. Many ethnic groups were also persecuted by Saddam and his armies. The average Iraqi however could walk the streets in the knowledge that a strict public order was constantly being maintained and while we all like to wish we could do something about all the less fortunate people of the world the human reality is that first and foremost we need to take care of ourselves on a daily basis and this means being able to work, earn money, buy food and move about without the constant threat of physical harm.

While the US has recently made a certain amount of progress in working with the new Iraqi institutions to claw back a certain amount of stability in the region the sad reality is that for the majority of Iraqis death, destruction, grief and loss are an everyday reality that they now have to deal with. The media don't dedicate as much air time to it anymore but car bombs and suicide attacks are still a regular occurrence - imagine life in New York, London, Paris or Dublin if there were suicide attacks and car bombs every couple of days.

As I have already said, the reality of day to day life in Baghdad has nothing to do with playing the blame game...they find themselves in this situation now and have to make the best lives possible for themselves. Supporters of the war will argue that Saddam's reign may have incurred just as many tragic deaths had it been allowed to persist for long enough and who knows maybe it would have but the fact is a society where once it was safe to walk down the street and go to work is now one of the most dangerous places on the planet.

This is not a denial of the progress being made in Iraq, it is just an assessment of reality.

Last edited by Braddock (2008-08-15 03:27:00)

Chrisimo
Member
+3|5768
If people really think that Iraq under Saddam was better (it surely was for some people, those that could assimilate - like in any dictatorship), then they should ask the US to act like Saddam did.

Last edited by Chrisimo (2008-08-15 03:32:53)

Braddock
Agitator
+916|6306|Éire

Chrisimo wrote:

If people really think that Iraq under Saddam was better (it surely was for some people, those that could assimilate - like in any dictatorship), then they should ask the US to act like Saddam did.
Would that not make the war the most pointless waste of human life since the holocaust?

To launch a war claiming thousand of lives in order to depose a dictator only to install a regime that operates in exactly the same way would be utterly dense if you ask me.
Chrisimo
Member
+3|5768

Braddock wrote:

Chrisimo wrote:

If people really think that Iraq under Saddam was better (it surely was for some people, those that could assimilate - like in any dictatorship), then they should ask the US to act like Saddam did.
Would that not make the war the most pointless waste of human life since the holocaust?

To launch a war claiming thousand of lives in order to depose a dictator only to install a regime that operates in exactly the same way would be utterly dense if you ask me.
Of course. But that doesn't mean the US shouldn't do it if Iraq really was better off under Saddam. But I look at it from a different perspective. Let's look at Germany after WW2 again. We could have done the same things the Iraqis are doing now (blow ourselves up). But we did not. We took the chance we were given and rebuild our country. I don't want to imply that we were in any way better than the Iraqis. We just took a different approach. And of course we didn't have different ethnic/religous groups who are enemies to each other. The Iraqis are in a different position. But they have the same chance that we had and I still think they will use it after they have gotten enough of all the death. Perhaps a solution would be to split Iraq into different countries where each ethnic group can live with their own kind. At any rate, those things need a lot of time.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6169|what

Terror attacks actually turn the general population against AQ for the simple reason that they don't want to be bombed whilst visiting their local marketplace.

When the civilians have had friends, relatives and community members killed it's only natural that they turn against the "freedom fighters".

However, as these terrorists are an unknown force it's much easier to blame the United States for causing the problems in the country (rightly or wrongly so, to a degree).

If the US had toppled Saddam as quickly as they did, and pulled out the army you would see huge support for them as well as more hate of the terrorists.

If the terrorists continue to blow up the buses and police stations, while the US army isn't in the country, what do you think is going to happen?

The people won't rise up against the West. They'll rise up against the insurgency.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
Chrisimo
Member
+3|5768

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Terror attacks actually turn the general population against AQ for the simple reason that they don't want to be bombed whilst visiting their local marketplace.

When the civilians have had friends, relatives and community members killed it's only natural that they turn against the "freedom fighters".

However, as these terrorists are an unknown force it's much easier to blame the United States for causing the problems in the country (rightly or wrongly so, to a degree).

If the US had toppled Saddam as quickly as they did, and pulled out the army you would see huge support for them as well as more hate of the terrorists.

If the terrorists continue to blow up the buses and police stations, while the US army isn't in the country, what do you think is going to happen?

The people won't rise up against the West. They'll rise up against the insurgency.
It's not only AQ who commit terrorist attacks in Iraq. And if the US had gotten out early they still would be blamed because they didn't help the country after invading it.
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6306|Éire

Chrisimo wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Chrisimo wrote:

If people really think that Iraq under Saddam was better (it surely was for some people, those that could assimilate - like in any dictatorship), then they should ask the US to act like Saddam did.
Would that not make the war the most pointless waste of human life since the holocaust?

To launch a war claiming thousand of lives in order to depose a dictator only to install a regime that operates in exactly the same way would be utterly dense if you ask me.
Of course. But that doesn't mean the US shouldn't do it if Iraq really was better off under Saddam. But I look at it from a different perspective. Let's look at Germany after WW2 again. We could have done the same things the Iraqis are doing now (blow ourselves up). But we did not. We took the chance we were given and rebuild our country. I don't want to imply that we were in any way better than the Iraqis. We just took a different approach. And of course we didn't have different ethnic/religous groups who are enemies to each other. The Iraqis are in a different position. But they have the same chance that we had and I still think they will use it after they have gotten enough of all the death. Perhaps a solution would be to split Iraq into different countries where each ethnic group can live with their own kind. At any rate, those things need a lot of time.
A lot of time and a lot of bloodshed. I still think that despite any good progress the Allied forces can achieve in the region a civil war will still erupt at some point after they depart and it is the ethnic dimension to the conflict that will cause this - a problem that, like it or not, Saddam was able to keep a grip on.
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|6637|London, England

Chrisimo wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Chrisimo wrote:

If people really think that Iraq under Saddam was better (it surely was for some people, those that could assimilate - like in any dictatorship), then they should ask the US to act like Saddam did.
Would that not make the war the most pointless waste of human life since the holocaust?

To launch a war claiming thousand of lives in order to depose a dictator only to install a regime that operates in exactly the same way would be utterly dense if you ask me.
Of course. But that doesn't mean the US shouldn't do it if Iraq really was better off under Saddam. But I look at it from a different perspective. Let's look at Germany after WW2 again. We could have done the same things the Iraqis are doing now (blow ourselves up). But we did not. We took the chance we were given and rebuild our country. I don't want to imply that we were in any way better than the Iraqis. We just took a different approach. And of course we didn't have different ethnic/religous groups who are enemies to each other. The Iraqis are in a different position. But they have the same chance that we had and I still think they will use it after they have gotten enough of all the death. Perhaps a solution would be to split Iraq into different countries where each ethnic group can live with their own kind. At any rate, those things need a lot of time.
I think it was because the Germans were totally exhausted from the war. Which was massive. If the Allies/USSR rolled through the Germans in a month in 1939 and then just deposed Hitler and disbanded the Army (all within like, 2 months) as with that happened in Iraq. Things would have been different for the German population.

Also the German/Japanese military wasn't just disbanded it was almost totally destroyed so there was nobody left to do much of the fighting as an insurgency anyway

Last edited by Mek-Stizzle (2008-08-15 04:05:12)

Chrisimo
Member
+3|5768

Braddock wrote:

A lot of time and a lot of bloodshed. I still think that despite any good progress the Allied forces can achieve in the region a civil war will still erupt at some point after they depart and it is the ethnic dimension to the conflict that will cause this - a problem that, like it or not, Saddam was able to keep a grip on.
So do you think that that grip was worth all the bad things it brought with it? Because if your answer is yes, then you really should be in favor of the US adopting the same tactics. Even if it would make the war pointless. After all, if the current strategy is not working, why not accept it as an error and revert back to the old one?
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6571

Chrisimo wrote:

Of course. But that doesn't mean the US shouldn't do it if Iraq really was better off under Saddam. But I look at it from a different perspective. Let's look at Germany after WW2 again. We could have done the same things the Iraqis are doing now (blow ourselves up). But we did not. We took the chance we were given and rebuild our country. I don't want to imply that we were in any way better than the Iraqis. We just took a different approach. And of course we didn't have different ethnic/religous groups who are enemies to each other. The Iraqis are in a different position. But they have the same chance that we had and I still think they will use it after they have gotten enough of all the death. Perhaps a solution would be to split Iraq into different countries where each ethnic group can live with their own kind. At any rate, those things need a lot of time.
a) Germany was a liberal and progressive Christian nation. Iraq is a conservative muslim nation whose politics have yet to evolve beyond aristrocratic government.
b) Germany had been utterly and totally humiliatingly smashed solidly into the ground militarily. They had no choice but to whole-heartedly capitulate to the victors of the war. The same does not apply in Iraq. The reason being that the war in Iraq bears little relation to WWII.
c) A culturally alien nation, allied to an enemy nation, patronisingly introducing 'regime change' and their own socio-economic ideas will rightly incur vehement opposition. It's essentially what the Soviet Union did to Eastern Europe: imposed their cultural, military, political and economic will on other unwilling nations.
Chrisimo
Member
+3|5768

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

I think it was because the Germans were totally exhausted from the war. Which was massive. If the Allies/USSR rolled through the Germans in a month in 1939 and then just deposed Hitler and disbanded the Army (all within like, 2 months) as with that happened in Iraq. Things would have been different for the German population.
They were exhausted, yes. But they wouldn't start blowing each other up if the war only lasted for a month. There would be no reason to do that. As I said, no opposing ethnic groups/religions in a large enough scale to fight each other (after all, we are the Herrenvolk not too long ago).

Mek-Stizzle wrote:

Also the German/Japanese military wasn't just disbanded it was almost totally destroyed so there was nobody left to do much of the fighting as an insurgency anyway
And I don't think Iraw had a significant Army to begin with. But they have a lot of privately owned weapons, which Germans didn't have. But again, as I said, the situations were different. But the chance is the same. And I think that the Iraqis will be exhausted at some point as well. I think it got a lot better actually in the last year.
Chrisimo
Member
+3|5768

CameronPoe wrote:

Chrisimo wrote:

Of course. But that doesn't mean the US shouldn't do it if Iraq really was better off under Saddam. But I look at it from a different perspective. Let's look at Germany after WW2 again. We could have done the same things the Iraqis are doing now (blow ourselves up). But we did not. We took the chance we were given and rebuild our country. I don't want to imply that we were in any way better than the Iraqis. We just took a different approach. And of course we didn't have different ethnic/religous groups who are enemies to each other. The Iraqis are in a different position. But they have the same chance that we had and I still think they will use it after they have gotten enough of all the death. Perhaps a solution would be to split Iraq into different countries where each ethnic group can live with their own kind. At any rate, those things need a lot of time.
a) Germany was a liberal and progressive Christian nation. Iraq is a conservative muslim nation whose politics have yet to evolve beyond aristrocratic government.
b) Germany had been utterly and totally humiliatingly smashed solidly into the ground militarily. They had no choice but to whole-heartedly capitulate to the victors of the war. The same does not apply in Iraq. The reason being that the war in Iraq bears little relation to WWII.
c) A culturally alien nation, allied to an enemy nation, patronisingly introducing 'regime change' and their own socio-economic ideas will rightly incur vehement opposition. It's essentially what the Soviet Union did to Eastern Europe: imposed their cultural, military, political and economic will on other unwilling nations.
Hmm, the Iraqis aren't fighting the US, they are fighting themselves. This isn't about capitulation as you implied in point b). This is about fighting each other.
Beduin
Compensation of Reactive Power in the grid
+510|5766|شمال
I have alot of iraqi friends. All of them supported the war.
But now I hear them say Iraq was alot better before 2003.
Hard to belive, cause they are shias.
الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6306|Éire

Chrisimo wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Chrisimo wrote:

Of course. But that doesn't mean the US shouldn't do it if Iraq really was better off under Saddam. But I look at it from a different perspective. Let's look at Germany after WW2 again. We could have done the same things the Iraqis are doing now (blow ourselves up). But we did not. We took the chance we were given and rebuild our country. I don't want to imply that we were in any way better than the Iraqis. We just took a different approach. And of course we didn't have different ethnic/religous groups who are enemies to each other. The Iraqis are in a different position. But they have the same chance that we had and I still think they will use it after they have gotten enough of all the death. Perhaps a solution would be to split Iraq into different countries where each ethnic group can live with their own kind. At any rate, those things need a lot of time.
a) Germany was a liberal and progressive Christian nation. Iraq is a conservative muslim nation whose politics have yet to evolve beyond aristrocratic government.
b) Germany had been utterly and totally humiliatingly smashed solidly into the ground militarily. They had no choice but to whole-heartedly capitulate to the victors of the war. The same does not apply in Iraq. The reason being that the war in Iraq bears little relation to WWII.
c) A culturally alien nation, allied to an enemy nation, patronisingly introducing 'regime change' and their own socio-economic ideas will rightly incur vehement opposition. It's essentially what the Soviet Union did to Eastern Europe: imposed their cultural, military, political and economic will on other unwilling nations.
Hmm, the Iraqis aren't fighting the US, they are fighting themselves. This isn't about capitulation as you implied in point b). This is about fighting each other.
They're not fighting the US? Those US military deaths I've read about on the news in the last five years were all accidents?
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6773|Argentina
Iraqis don't think.  That is why they needed the US to help them.
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6306|Éire

Beduin wrote:

I have alot of iraqi friends. All of them supported the war.
But now I hear them say Iraq was alot better before 2003.
Hard to belive, cause they are shias.
You see that's kind of what I was getting at in the OP. Opposing the war or its after effects is not the same as saying you wish Saddam was back in power, the reality is when it comes to day to day life you need to be able to do certain things and in Iraq in its current state life is far too difficult to do some of the simplest things like go to work without fearing for your life.
All-I-C-Z-Rage
Formerly r'Eeee
+4|5763

sergeriver wrote:

Iraqis don't think.  That is why they needed the US to help them.
Fail.

I use my brain and think.

Last edited by All-I-C-Z-Rage (2008-08-15 04:28:45)

Chrisimo
Member
+3|5768

Braddock wrote:

They're not fighting the US? Those US military deaths I've read about on the news in the last five years were all accidents?
Compare the US deaths to Iraqi deaths and you see what I mean. How many US soldiers were killed by Iraqis and how many were killed by AQ forces from the outside?

Do you really think the current problems are caused by Iraqis fighting the US?
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6773|Argentina

All-I-C-Z-Rage wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Iraqis don't think.  That is why they needed the US to help them.
Fail.

I use my brain and think.

I missed the /sarcasm.  I know you guys think.
All-I-C-Z-Rage
Formerly r'Eeee
+4|5763
Ah sorry, it's hard to detect sarcasm from za interwebs.

I was confident though, that we can think, nonetheless.

Last edited by All-I-C-Z-Rage (2008-08-15 04:31:26)

Freke1
I play at night... mostly
+47|6563|the best galaxy
In the long run freedom is the best I think.
Al-Qaida will kill everybody rather than stop fighting I'm afraid. Morons.
Must be tuff to be a ordinary Iraqi though.

Last edited by Freke1 (2008-08-15 04:34:53)

https://bf3s.com/sigs/7d11696e2ffd4edeff06466095e98b0fab37462c.png
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6306|Éire

Chrisimo wrote:

Braddock wrote:

They're not fighting the US? Those US military deaths I've read about on the news in the last five years were all accidents?
Compare the US deaths to Iraqi deaths and you see what I mean. How many US soldiers were killed by Iraqis and how many were killed by AQ forces from the outside?

Do you really think the current problems are caused by Iraqis fighting the US?
I think the current problems are caused because the stability that existed before the invasion has been decimated by the Allied forces. You have Iraqis killing Americans, Iraqis killing Iraqis and AQ flooding into the country to kill whoever they please.
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|6773|Argentina

Braddock wrote:

Chrisimo wrote:

Braddock wrote:

They're not fighting the US? Those US military deaths I've read about on the news in the last five years were all accidents?
Compare the US deaths to Iraqi deaths and you see what I mean. How many US soldiers were killed by Iraqis and how many were killed by AQ forces from the outside?

Do you really think the current problems are caused by Iraqis fighting the US?
I think the current problems are caused because the stability that existed before the invasion has been decimated by the Allied forces. You have Iraqis killing Americans, Iraqis killing Iraqis and AQ flooding into the country to kill whoever they please.
It's all about power and money.  Like Snake said: "He, who controls the battlefield, controls history".
Chrisimo
Member
+3|5768

Braddock wrote:

I think the current problems are caused because the stability that existed before the invasion has been decimated by the Allied forces. You have Iraqis killing Americans, Iraqis killing Iraqis and AQ flooding into the country to kill whoever they please.
Yes, that is true. But the main problem is Iraqis killing other Iraqis. So what do you propose? You think that the current situation is worse and see no chance of improvement. Am I correct here? But you don't want to bring Saddam back (or his methods), even if Iraq would be better off. Why? Because he did wrong things? So rather keep the status quo than doing the wrong things, even if that would result in a better situation? Isn't that kind of contradictory?
imortal
Member
+240|6681|Austin, TX

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Terror attacks actually turn the general population against AQ for the simple reason that they don't want to be bombed whilst visiting their local marketplace.

When the civilians have had friends, relatives and community members killed it's only natural that they turn against the "freedom fighters".

However, as these terrorists are an unknown force it's much easier to blame the United States for causing the problems in the country (rightly or wrongly so, to a degree).

If the US had toppled Saddam as quickly as they did, and pulled out the army you would see huge support for them as well as more hate of the terrorists.

If the terrorists continue to blow up the buses and police stations, while the US army isn't in the country, what do you think is going to happen?

The people won't rise up against the West. They'll rise up against the insurgency.
...or those terrorists manage to take control of the goverment, and the people are oppressed again.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard