Sondjata do you really think Iraq is in a position to take control of it's own country anytime soon?
hmmmmm.... i recall the same thing said about jamaica and China and Hong Kong and Soth Africa and....well just about everywhere the white man went and colonized. same basic pattern. go somewhere where the people were governing themselves, declare them uncivilized, Destroy the ruling government, pit groups against each other to foster petty infighting, kill, deport, or otherwise remove those who would govern their people for thier people. When the citizens of the mother country (now..world opinion) complain that the "natives should rule themselves." the ruling party says that "they aren't ready to rule themselves" and "they need to learn democratic insitutions" a "free market needs to be developed." yada yaddaaa yadaaa.
hmmmmm.... i recall the same thing said about jamaica and China and Hong Kong and Soth Africa and....well just about everywhere the white man went and colonized. same basic pattern. go somewhere where the people were governing themselves, ....
What the average Iraqi wants should not be the litmus test. No one wants a dentist prying and scraping around inside their mouth, either. Does that mean getting a checkup (or a root canal) isn't warranted? I think these Iraqi people forget what it was like with Saddam at the reigns a bit too easily.
If it didn't happen, they couldn't show us. Even Fox News can't show pictures of a Bush praising Iraqi public because it doesn't exist. They don't want us there. Grin and bear it.
So you're a mind reader. You can read the mind of every there and speak for them? How do you do that?
... I think these Iraqi people forget what it was like with Saddam at the reigns a bit too easily.
I don't think that's the case at all. I think it's just the biased media always looking for the "got ya" story, if it bleeds it leads, if it's chanting anti-american slogans it leads. That kind of thing. There's no real attempt to do any real reporting in Iraq. Plus the bias of the media is such that they want to take bush down.
I'd think that is entirely dependent on who's holding the camera and the political lean of that cameraman's organization. Plus, I'd suggest that you are better off venting some anti-US message these days than pro-Bush in that part of the world. It's probably easier to catch the former on tape than the latter. Only seeing the former isn't simple enough explanation for, "they don't want us there." Things are just not that simple, but it serves some people's agendas to point it out as a sign of something.
My boss talked about a recent Lehr show that explained it well. The two people were someone from some aid organization who had returned from Iraq in the past week or so and Perle. Perle was doing his usual lying bit (saying the same things as scott here) and she called him out challenging him to got to Iraq when she returns.
BTW: my boss's husband is in Iraq right now. Oh, and one of my two closest friends has a lot of family there. The universal report is that Iraq is in really bad shape. My friends family, while probably upper class, have no electricity in any of their homes, no garbage, no basic services. They don't have their own working phones and have to call sporadically.
Scott, I challenge you to go to Iraq. I bet you haven't even talked to a single person whose been in baghdad in the past year. You can BS all you want about media spin making it seem worse, but the fact is that you have no contact with the situation and people that do verify that you are dead wrong.
Who is saying there aren't any problems over there right now? Is this to mean that your friend's family in Iraq actively blame the US for no water/power/basic services, and they would rather have Saddam back in power if that meant they could get those services back tommorrow? That's a big leap to go from "having problems and being frustrated over it" to "resenting the US ever got involved". Perhaps that is part of the problem in that some news organizations see those disparate topics as one and the same, worthy for consolidation into one conveniently tidy little news bit.
Who is saying there aren't any problems over there right now? Is this to mean that your friend's family in Iraq actively blame the US for no water/power/basic services, and they would rather have Saddam back in power if that meant they could get those services back tommorrow?
The U.S. broke international law by bombing those services. Only infrastructure directly associated with the Military is a legitimate target. So the bridges in Bhagdad that were bombed because the military might have crossed them, that was illegal. Water treatment plants in the city that might have gotten some water to the military were not legal targets.
So, no. These people probably wouldn't want Saddam back to get their services. But, those that broke the law and destroyed them should pay to have them fixed with their money and not Iraqi money, and it should have been done yesterday.
My boss talked about a recent Lehr show that explained it well. The two people were someone from some aid organization who had returned from Iraq in the past week or so and Perle. Perle was doing his usual lying bit (saying the same things as scott here) and she called him out challenging him to got to Iraq when she returns.
BTW: my boss's husband is in Iraq right now. Oh, and one of my two closest friends has a lot of family there. The universal report is that Iraq is in really bad shape. My friends family, while probably upper class, have no electricity in any of their homes, no garbage, no basic services. They don't have their own working phones and have to call sporadically.
Scott, I challenge you to go to Iraq. I bet you haven't even talked to a single person whose been in baghdad in the past year. You can BS all you want about media spin making it seem worse, but the fact is that you have no contact with the situation and people that do verify that you are dead wrong.
Who is saying there aren't any problems over there right now? Is this to mean that your friend's family in Iraq actively blame the US for no water/power/basic services, and they would rather have Saddam back in power if that meant they could get those services back tommorrow? That's a big leap to go from "having problems and being frustrated over it" to "resenting the US ever got involved". Perhaps that is part of the problem in that some news organizations see those disparate topics as one and the same, worthy for consolidation into one conveniently tidy little news bit.
You guys really need to stop with this whole either/or thing. For you this issue is a matter of deciding how you will type your argument into a computer. For Iraqis, its their lives. One thing is for sure: your question makes a few big erroneous assumptions about point of view and information access, both for you and for those stuck in Iraq.
You guys really need to stop with this whole either/or thing. For you this issue is a matter of deciding how you will type your argument into a computer. For Iraqis, its their lives. One thing is for sure: your question makes a few big erroneous assumptions about point of view and information access, both for you and for those stuck in Iraq.
Exactly, so it is a bit arrogant for you or me to speak for them as some sort of beacon of pure truth. No one here can really say they have a direct handle on the state of affairs there. We can talk about it. That's about it.
The military doesn't use electricity and water and other such things?
Well, they use air, too. And hospitals.
So the question you are really asking, no, it does not make them legitimate military targets. The Pentagon agrees with this, and therefore disagrees with you.
The military doesn't use electricity and water and other such things?
Proportionality and distinction.
We attacked water treatment facilities because the army was somewhere in the city, although we didn't know where. We just assumed that killing the water supply would effect them.
Exactly, so it is a bit arrogant for you or me to speak for them as some sort of beacon of pure truth. No one here can really say they have a direct handle on the state of affairs there. We can talk about it. That's about it.
Wrong. I am relaying information from people that are there. The woman talking to Perle was discussing her personal experience.
One thing interesting is how the Iraqis I've talked to emphasize how silly they find average americans' politicizing of the situation. For instance, I know two older Iraqi women who hate saddam, but some of their prized possessions are saddam related--a watch with his face, for example. In other words, you can try all you want to project your limited opinions on to this idea you have in your head that you call 'Iraqis,' but at some point you are going to have to realize that in doing so, your beliefs will invariably be wrong. The views I have heard run from "I don't care who's in power as long as the country get back to normal" all the way to "US go home." Yup, it's that narrow. I've asked, and no one I've talked to is happy with the situation.
I think some of you don't realize how little most people care about the political situation, so long as the country actually has stability of some sort. Everything you read about Iraq is so wrapped up in politics you forget that the country is made up of actual completely normal people. We've also had this demonized image of iraq shoved down our throats that we forget that most people lived absolutely normal lives.
Hell look how many people in the US couldn't care less about politics. Do you really think it is so different elsewhere? I have a family member that was in germany during and after WWII, and that experience made her completely disinterested in politics.
Anyway, think about it this way: if you are living peacefully and someone comes and uproots your life with a bunch of nervous, civilian killing (with no repercussions) trigger-happy 19 year-olds, what would you think? Think about it for a second. Your wife and kid could be shot to death by some dumb-shit 19 year old just for driving wrong, and you could do nothing about it. NOTHING. No one to turn to. And this isn't unusual at all. It's happenening every day.
Comments
Originally posted by Scott
Sondjata do you really think Iraq is in a position to take control of it's own country anytime soon?
hmmmmm.... i recall the same thing said about jamaica and China and Hong Kong and Soth Africa and....well just about everywhere the white man went and colonized. same basic pattern. go somewhere where the people were governing themselves, declare them uncivilized, Destroy the ruling government, pit groups against each other to foster petty infighting, kill, deport, or otherwise remove those who would govern their people for thier people. When the citizens of the mother country (now..world opinion) complain that the "natives should rule themselves." the ruling party says that "they aren't ready to rule themselves" and "they need to learn democratic insitutions" a "free market needs to be developed." yada yaddaaa yadaaa.
As if the "natives" were but 5 year old children.
Originally posted by groverat
Harald obviously has his finger on the pulse of the Iraqi people. You are wrong to question.
Television.
When kids throw stones at you, chant 'death to America' and, well, tell everyone they hate you, I'd think that may mean they don't like you.
But you have the most stunning RDF going on there. You go grove.
Originally posted by Sondjata
hmmmmm.... i recall the same thing said about jamaica and China and Hong Kong and Soth Africa and....well just about everywhere the white man went and colonized. same basic pattern. go somewhere where the people were governing themselves, ....
I'm sorry I stopped reading there.
Originally posted by Harald
Television.
When kids throw stones at you, chant 'death to America' and, well, tell everyone they hate you, I'd think that may mean they don't like you.
But you have the most stunning RDF going on there. You go grove.
Well that's what they show you. And you watch. So they show you more.
Originally posted by tonton
If it didn't happen, they couldn't show us. Even Fox News can't show pictures of a Bush praising Iraqi public because it doesn't exist. They don't want us there. Grin and bear it.
So you're a mind reader. You can read the mind of every there and speak for them? How do you do that?
Originally posted by Randycat99
... I think these Iraqi people forget what it was like with Saddam at the reigns a bit too easily.
I don't think that's the case at all. I think it's just the biased media always looking for the "got ya" story, if it bleeds it leads, if it's chanting anti-american slogans it leads. That kind of thing. There's no real attempt to do any real reporting in Iraq. Plus the bias of the media is such that they want to take bush down.
BTW: my boss's husband is in Iraq right now. Oh, and one of my two closest friends has a lot of family there. The universal report is that Iraq is in really bad shape. My friends family, while probably upper class, have no electricity in any of their homes, no garbage, no basic services. They don't have their own working phones and have to call sporadically.
Scott, I challenge you to go to Iraq. I bet you haven't even talked to a single person whose been in baghdad in the past year. You can BS all you want about media spin making it seem worse, but the fact is that you have no contact with the situation and people that do verify that you are dead wrong.
But that's normal for you, isn't it?
Originally posted by Randycat99
Who is saying there aren't any problems over there right now? Is this to mean that your friend's family in Iraq actively blame the US for no water/power/basic services, and they would rather have Saddam back in power if that meant they could get those services back tommorrow?
The U.S. broke international law by bombing those services. Only infrastructure directly associated with the Military is a legitimate target. So the bridges in Bhagdad that were bombed because the military might have crossed them, that was illegal. Water treatment plants in the city that might have gotten some water to the military were not legal targets.
So, no. These people probably wouldn't want Saddam back to get their services. But, those that broke the law and destroyed them should pay to have them fixed with their money and not Iraqi money, and it should have been done yesterday.
Originally posted by giant
My boss talked about a recent Lehr show that explained it well. The two people were someone from some aid organization who had returned from Iraq in the past week or so and Perle. Perle was doing his usual lying bit (saying the same things as scott here) and she called him out challenging him to got to Iraq when she returns.
BTW: my boss's husband is in Iraq right now. Oh, and one of my two closest friends has a lot of family there. The universal report is that Iraq is in really bad shape. My friends family, while probably upper class, have no electricity in any of their homes, no garbage, no basic services. They don't have their own working phones and have to call sporadically.
Scott, I challenge you to go to Iraq. I bet you haven't even talked to a single person whose been in baghdad in the past year. You can BS all you want about media spin making it seem worse, but the fact is that you have no contact with the situation and people that do verify that you are dead wrong.
But that's normal for you, isn't it?
WTF are you talking about?
Originally posted by Randycat99
Who is saying there aren't any problems over there right now? Is this to mean that your friend's family in Iraq actively blame the US for no water/power/basic services, and they would rather have Saddam back in power if that meant they could get those services back tommorrow? That's a big leap to go from "having problems and being frustrated over it" to "resenting the US ever got involved". Perhaps that is part of the problem in that some news organizations see those disparate topics as one and the same, worthy for consolidation into one conveniently tidy little news bit.
You guys really need to stop with this whole either/or thing. For you this issue is a matter of deciding how you will type your argument into a computer. For Iraqis, its their lives. One thing is for sure: your question makes a few big erroneous assumptions about point of view and information access, both for you and for those stuck in Iraq.
Originally posted by bunge
The U.S. broke international law by bombing those services. Only infrastructure directly associated with the Military is a legitimate target.
....
The military doesn't use electricity and water and other such things?
Originally posted by giant
You guys really need to stop with this whole either/or thing. For you this issue is a matter of deciding how you will type your argument into a computer. For Iraqis, its their lives. One thing is for sure: your question makes a few big erroneous assumptions about point of view and information access, both for you and for those stuck in Iraq.
Exactly, so it is a bit arrogant for you or me to speak for them as some sort of beacon of pure truth. No one here can really say they have a direct handle on the state of affairs there. We can talk about it. That's about it.
Originally posted by Scott
The military doesn't use electricity and water and other such things?
Well, they use air, too. And hospitals.
So the question you are really asking, no, it does not make them legitimate military targets. The Pentagon agrees with this, and therefore disagrees with you.
Originally posted by Scott
The military doesn't use electricity and water and other such things?
Proportionality and distinction.
We attacked water treatment facilities because the army was somewhere in the city, although we didn't know where. We just assumed that killing the water supply would effect them.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Exactly, so it is a bit arrogant for you or me to speak for them as some sort of beacon of pure truth. No one here can really say they have a direct handle on the state of affairs there. We can talk about it. That's about it.
Wrong. I am relaying information from people that are there. The woman talking to Perle was discussing her personal experience.
One thing interesting is how the Iraqis I've talked to emphasize how silly they find average americans' politicizing of the situation. For instance, I know two older Iraqi women who hate saddam, but some of their prized possessions are saddam related--a watch with his face, for example. In other words, you can try all you want to project your limited opinions on to this idea you have in your head that you call 'Iraqis,' but at some point you are going to have to realize that in doing so, your beliefs will invariably be wrong. The views I have heard run from "I don't care who's in power as long as the country get back to normal" all the way to "US go home." Yup, it's that narrow. I've asked, and no one I've talked to is happy with the situation.
I think some of you don't realize how little most people care about the political situation, so long as the country actually has stability of some sort. Everything you read about Iraq is so wrapped up in politics you forget that the country is made up of actual completely normal people. We've also had this demonized image of iraq shoved down our throats that we forget that most people lived absolutely normal lives.
Hell look how many people in the US couldn't care less about politics. Do you really think it is so different elsewhere? I have a family member that was in germany during and after WWII, and that experience made her completely disinterested in politics.
Anyway, think about it this way: if you are living peacefully and someone comes and uproots your life with a bunch of nervous, civilian killing (with no repercussions) trigger-happy 19 year-olds, what would you think? Think about it for a second. Your wife and kid could be shot to death by some dumb-shit 19 year old just for driving wrong, and you could do nothing about it. NOTHING. No one to turn to. And this isn't unusual at all. It's happenening every day.