Iraq

User avatar
Azrael
Posts: 1863
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: The Iraq Thread

Post by Azrael »

Ibrahim wrote:There are plenty of sick dictatorships in the world, Doc, and the US supported half of them because they were torturing the kids of communists instead of capitalists. Why so horny to invade Iraq specifically if you didn't buy into the WMD hype?
His messiah told him to, and his messiah could do no wrong, until he nominated Harriet Miers to be on the Supreme Court.
I think a lot of people are "ret-conning" their own memories. None of us knew the WMD claims were bullshit until none were found,
I knew. So did a lot of people.
cultivate a white rose
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: The Iraq Thread

Post by Doc »

Azrael wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:There are plenty of sick dictatorships in the world, Doc, and the US supported half of them because they were torturing the kids of communists instead of capitalists. Why so horny to invade Iraq specifically if you didn't buy into the WMD hype?
His messiah told him to, and his messiah could do no wrong, until he nominated Harriet Miers to be on the Supreme Court.
HUH? I already said why I wanted to in detail. It had more to do with what HW Bush did.
I think a lot of people are "ret-conning" their own memories. None of us knew the WMD claims were bullshit until none were found,
I knew. So did a lot of people.[/quote]

A lot of people thought Saddam had WMD because Saddam wanted the world to think he had WMD. But like I said that was not a reason to invade.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
User avatar
Azrael
Posts: 1863
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:57 pm

Re: The Iraq Thread

Post by Azrael »

Yes, I know. You care so, so much about all the Iraqi children. Well, not the "collateral damage", just all the other ones.

And all the little children are just so much better off, with sectarian death squads, suicide bombers, destroyed infrastructure, etc.

Bravo!
cultivate a white rose
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: The Iraq Thread

Post by Doc »

Azrael wrote:Yes, I know. You care so, so much about all the Iraqi children. Well, not the "collateral damage", just all the other ones.

And all the little children are just so much better off, with sectarian death squads, suicide bombers, destroyed infrastructure, etc.

Bravo!
And you deny that a 4 year old was tortured Her feet crushed at age two. Would you say that to her face?
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: The Iraq Thread

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:
Azrael wrote:Yes, I know. You care so, so much about all the Iraqi children. Well, not the "collateral damage", just all the other ones.

And all the little children are just so much better off, with sectarian death squads, suicide bombers, destroyed infrastructure, etc.

Bravo!
And you deny that a 4 year old was tortured Her feet crushed at age two. Would you say that to her face?
Tell it to the family of a girl raped and murdered by US soldiers. Tell it to the 4 year old child orphaned by the US military. Tell that child you helped pay for it, you voted for it, and you think it was necessary and a worthwhile.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: The Iraq Thread

Post by Doc »

Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Azrael wrote:Yes, I know. You care so, so much about all the Iraqi children. Well, not the "collateral damage", just all the other ones.

And all the little children are just so much better off, with sectarian death squads, suicide bombers, destroyed infrastructure, etc.

Bravo!
And you deny that a 4 year old was tortured Her feet crushed at age two. Would you say that to her face?
Tell it to the family of a girl raped and murdered by US soldiers. Tell it to the 4 year old child orphaned by the US military. Tell that child you helped pay for it, you voted for it, and you think it was necessary and a worthwhile.
While not an outright denial -- Still no acknowledgement of the 4 year old being tortured at two years of age. Two wrongs do not make a right. That is not an argument. If you saw the girl being tortured what would you do Ibrahim? Personally I would be outraged to beyond rational about doing something about it. AS I would if i saw anyone raping a child for any reason. AS to death in war-- War is hell. I have never said otherwise. Where would you draw the line in deciding whether to go or not to go to war?
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: The Iraq Thread

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Azrael wrote:Yes, I know. You care so, so much about all the Iraqi children. Well, not the "collateral damage", just all the other ones.

And all the little children are just so much better off, with sectarian death squads, suicide bombers, destroyed infrastructure, etc.

Bravo!
And you deny that a 4 year old was tortured Her feet crushed at age two. Would you say that to her face?
Tell it to the family of a girl raped and murdered by US soldiers. Tell it to the 4 year old child orphaned by the US military. Tell that child you helped pay for it, you voted for it, and you think it was necessary and a worthwhile.
While not an outright denial -- Still no acknowledgement of the 4 year old being tortured at two years of age.
Total falsehood. I've already agreed that Saddam tortured children, I only point out that the US military does the same. They drastically increased the amount of suffering in Iraq.
Two wrongs do not make a right. That is not an argument.
Your whole position is that two wrong do make a right, and also that the US wrongs are slightly smaller than Saddam's wrongs. So not only are you arguing that two wrong make a right, but a kind of moral relativism as well.

If you saw the girl being tortured what would you do Ibrahim?
I always opposed it. You're the one trying to justify it when your military that you pay for does it. I've stated numerous times on this thread that my pro-US stance changed to opposition to US foreign policy and total contempt and disgust for the US military from 2003 onward after learning about all of their abuses. As the years have gone by the abuses have only piled up, and Americans have only gotten used to them and frankly spend all their time making excuses for them.


Personally I would be outraged to beyond rational about doing something about it.
You defend it and minimize it for your side, and that's the side you're in the best position to actually do something about. But what do you actually do about it? You make excuses to justify a ten-year-old invasion.


AS I would if i saw anyone raping a child for any reason. AS to death in war-- War is hell. I have never said otherwise. Where would you draw the line in deciding whether to go or not to go to war?
I certainly support war when a bunch of rapists and murderers occupy your country.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: The Iraq Thread

Post by Doc »

Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Azrael wrote:Yes, I know. You care so, so much about all the Iraqi children. Well, not the "collateral damage", just all the other ones.

And all the little children are just so much better off, with sectarian death squads, suicide bombers, destroyed infrastructure, etc.

Bravo!
And you deny that a 4 year old was tortured Her feet crushed at age two. Would you say that to her face?
Tell it to the family of a girl raped and murdered by US soldiers. Tell it to the 4 year old child orphaned by the US military. Tell that child you helped pay for it, you voted for it, and you think it was necessary and a worthwhile.
While not an outright denial -- Still no acknowledgement of the 4 year old being tortured at two years of age.
Total falsehood. I've already agreed that Saddam tortured children, I only point out that the US military does the same. They drastically increased the amount of suffering in Iraq.
Why can't you acknowledge that Saddam tortures children without making the false claim that the US does?
Two wrongs do not make a right. That is not an argument.
Your whole position is that two wrong do make a right, and also that the US wrongs are slightly smaller than Saddam's wrongs. So not only are you arguing that two wrong make a right, but a kind of moral relativism as well.

To stand and do nothing in regards to something like torture of children is immoral. Period.

If you saw the girl being tortured what would you do Ibrahim?
I always opposed it. You're the one trying to justify it when your military that you pay for does it. I've stated numerous times on this thread that my pro-US stance changed to opposition to US foreign policy and total contempt and disgust for the US military from 2003 onward after learning about all of their abuses. As the years have gone by the abuses have only piled up, and Americans have only gotten used to them and frankly spend all their time making excuses for them.
SO why didn't you do something about the torture of children in Iraq BTW I figured you opposed it.


Personally I would be outraged to beyond rational about doing something about it.
You defend it and minimize it for your side, and that's the side you're in the best position to actually do something about. But what do you actually do about it? You make excuses to justify a ten-year-old invasion.
And how many Arab countries have throw off their dictators?


AS I would if i saw anyone raping a child for any reason. AS to death in war-- War is hell. I have never said otherwise. Where would you draw the line in deciding whether to go or not to go to war?
I certainly support war when a bunch of rapists and murderers occupy your country.
And when it is being done by your own leader who will likely never be over thrown? What about that? I mean at north Korea It has now been 62 years.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: The Iraq Thread

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:Why can't you acknowledge that Saddam tortures children without making the false claim that the US does?
a) Its not a false claim. The US military murders, rapes, and tortures.

b) Your entire argument is that Saddam was such a bad guy that the US invasion was a good thing. The fact that the US military proved no better than Saddam contradicts your argument, so it is important to bear in mind. Also, you minimize or deny the crimes of the US military, so facts must be reasserted to contradict your patriotic revisionism.



To stand and do nothing in regards to something like torture of children is immoral. Period.
So is murdering or raping those same children yourself, so you're not presenting a solution. The argument seems to be that a US soldier shoving a regime goon out of the way to HE can rape an Iraqi child instead is some kind of moral improvement. It isn't, its a disgrace of historic proportions.

Not to mention that the US has funded repressive and abusive dictatorships for decades, and stood to the side while others churned on. I repeat: if you think it was worth invading Iraq then please tell me who you would like to invade next.


SO why didn't you do something about the torture of children in Iraq BTW I figured you opposed it.
What have either of us done about Iraq?



And how many Arab countries have throw off their dictators?
All of them at least once. Most several times. Recall that the entire region was under imperialist and then colonialist rule, and presently none are.



And when it is being done by your own leader who will likely never be over thrown? What about that? I mean at north Korea It has now been 62 years.
Gaddafi was there for 42, and where is he now? Hey, if North Koreans overthrow their regime I think that's great. What does that have to do with foreign occupation?
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: The Iraq Thread

Post by Doc »

Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:Why can't you acknowledge that Saddam tortures children without making the false claim that the US does?
a) Its not a false claim. The US military murders, rapes, and tortures.
You stated that the US military tortures children. IE:
Total falsehood. I've already agreed that Saddam tortured children, I only point out that the US military does the same. They drastically increased the amount of suffering in Iraq
.



b) Your entire argument is that Saddam was such a bad guy that the US invasion was a good thing. The fact that the US military proved no better than Saddam contradicts your argument, so it is important to bear in mind. Also, you minimize or deny the crimes of the US military, so facts must be reasserted to contradict your patriotic revisionism.[/quote]

You on the other hand are maximizing the artificial outrage. There was 100's of thousands of US troops in and back out of Iraq. There is no evidence that the number of child rapists was anything greater than the civilian population as a whole. Point in fact it was rumored that little Saddam Hussein starred in gay kiddie porn when he was young.

All we apparently agree on is that Saddam or his Psychopathic sons are no longer torturing children. In war you can never do enough to protect innocent life. I simply do not feel that letting such abuse go on as was happening under Saddam's thumb is morally defensible either.



To stand and do nothing in regards to something like torture of children is immoral. Period.
So is murdering or raping those same children yourself, so you're not presenting a solution. The argument seems to be that a US soldier shoving a regime goon out of the way to HE can rape an Iraqi child instead is some kind of moral improvement. It isn't, its a disgrace of historic proportions.

Not to mention that the US has funded repressive and abusive dictatorships for decades, and stood to the side while others churned on. I repeat: if you think it was worth invading Iraq then please tell me who you would like to invade next.
The repressive and abusive dictatorships are going away because of the invasion of Iraq. I was and am all for getting rid of the despots.


SO why didn't you do something about the torture of children in Iraq BTW I figured you opposed it.
What have either of us done about Iraq?
Personally I was opposed to Saddam's continued rule since poopi Bush decided that he was not going to get rid of him. I have 6 relatives that went to war in either Afghanistan, Iraq or both. One was blown up in Fallujah by an IED. His best friend died in the Humvee seat beside him.



And how many Arab countries have throw off their dictators?
All of them at least once. Most several times. Recall that the entire region was under imperialist and then colonialist rule, and presently none are.
Now why after WWII do you suppose so many ME countries and in fact countries around the world saw their colonizers depart?
And when it is being done by your own leader who will likely never be over thrown? What about that? I mean at north Korea It has now been 62 years.
Gaddafi was there for 42, and where is he now? Hey, if North Koreans overthrow their regime I think that's great. What does that have to do with foreign occupation?
Saddam was going no where. He should have been removed after the first gulf war. Instead he was left in power and 100's of thousands more died.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: The Iraq Thread

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:Why can't you acknowledge that Saddam tortures children without making the false claim that the US does?
a) Its not a false claim. The US military murders, rapes, and tortures.
You stated that the US military tortures children.
It does. I consider raping children, or murdering their parents in front of them, to be forms of torture. Not to mention the day-to-day abuses and dehumanization they experienced as the victims of an occupation.


b) Your entire argument is that Saddam was such a bad guy that the US invasion was a good thing. The fact that the US military proved no better than Saddam contradicts your argument, so it is important to bear in mind. Also, you minimize or deny the crimes of the US military, so facts must be reasserted to contradict your patriotic revisionism.
You on the other hand are maximizing the artificial outrage.
Why artificial? I am outraged and disgusted by the reported conduct of the US military in Iraq.


There was 100's of thousands of US troops in and back out of Iraq. There is no evidence that the number of child rapists was anything greater than the civilian population as a whole. Point in fact it was rumored that little Saddam Hussein starred in gay kiddie porn when he was young.
Uh... ok.



All we apparently agree on is that Saddam or his Psychopathic sons are no longer torturing children. In war you can never do enough to protect innocent life. I simply do not feel that letting such abuse go on as was happening under Saddam's thumb is morally defensible either.
Arguably the US had more responsibility for Iraq seeing as they armed and supported Saddam for decades. Still, the US invasion and occupation was a failure riddled with war crimes, and many Iraqis today consider the US military worse than Saddam.



To stand and do nothing in regards to something like torture of children is immoral. Period.
So is murdering or raping those same children yourself, so you're not presenting a solution. The argument seems to be that a US soldier shoving a regime goon out of the way to HE can rape an Iraqi child instead is some kind of moral improvement. It isn't, its a disgrace of historic proportions.

Not to mention that the US has funded repressive and abusive dictatorships for decades, and stood to the side while others churned on. I repeat: if you think it was worth invading Iraq then please tell me who you would like to invade next.
The repressive and abusive dictatorships are going away because of the invasion of Iraq.
A blatantly false claim.




SO why didn't you do something about the torture of children in Iraq BTW I figured you opposed it.
What have either of us done about Iraq?
Personally I was opposed to Saddam's continued rule since poopi Bush decided that he was not going to get rid of him.
I asked you what you did. If it all comes down to having opinions then that is a low bar.

Bush II systematically lied about the pretext for the war, and those lies were exposed after the invasion. Are you saying that you think the main reason for the US invasion was to help children? Why not invade North Korea or Burma then?



And how many Arab countries have throw off their dictators?
All of them at least once. Most several times. Recall that the entire region was under imperialist and then colonialist rule, and presently none are.
Now why after WWII do you suppose so many ME countries and in fact countries around the world saw their colonizers depart?
Actually the process starts during the First World War. But the two main reasons are the self-destruction of colonial powers in the world wars, and the development of more potent man-portable weapons, guerrilla tactics, and political organization in the aftermath of the Soviet and Chinese revolutions.


And when it is being done by your own leader who will likely never be over thrown? What about that? I mean at north Korea It has now been 62 years.
Gaddafi was there for 42, and where is he now? Hey, if North Koreans overthrow their regime I think that's great. What does that have to do with foreign occupation?
Saddam was going no where. He should have been removed after the first gulf war. Instead he was left in power and 100's of thousands more died.
Then the US invaded, and thousands more died.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: The Iraq Thread

Post by Doc »

Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:Why can't you acknowledge that Saddam tortures children without making the false claim that the US does?
a) Its not a false claim. The US military murders, rapes, and tortures.
You stated that the US military tortures children.
It does. I consider raping children, or murdering their parents in front of them, to be forms of torture. Not to mention the day-to-day abuses and dehumanization they experienced as the victims of an occupation.
Except you have done nothing to show that rape of children was a common occurrence by US forces. IE in any large group of people there are going to be bad people.


b) Your entire argument is that Saddam was such a bad guy that the US invasion was a good thing. The fact that the US military proved no better than Saddam contradicts your argument, so it is important to bear in mind. Also, you minimize or deny the crimes of the US military, so facts must be reasserted to contradict your patriotic revisionism.
You on the other hand are maximizing the artificial outrage.
Why artificial? I am outraged and disgusted by the reported conduct of the US military in Iraq.[/quote]

Most of the deaths in Iraq occurred at the hands of Iraqi militias. If you want to make claims it is the fault of the US for overthrowing Saddam then that is one thing. To make claims it was US forces themselves is another.


There was 100's of thousands of US troops in and back out of Iraq. There is no evidence that the number of child rapists was anything greater than the civilian population as a whole. Point in fact it was rumored that little Saddam Hussein starred in gay kiddie porn when he was young.
Uh... ok.
How about actually addressing the point?



All we apparently agree on is that Saddam or his Psychopathic sons are no longer torturing children. In war you can never do enough to protect innocent life. I simply do not feel that letting such abuse go on as was happening under Saddam's thumb is morally defensible either.
Arguably the US had more responsibility for Iraq seeing as they armed and supported Saddam for decades. Still, the US invasion and occupation was a failure riddled with war crimes, and many Iraqis today consider the US military worse than Saddam.
You have some proof of that other than you or someone just says so?
To stand and do nothing in regards to something like torture of children is immoral. Period.
So is murdering or raping those same children yourself, so you're not presenting a solution. The argument seems to be that a US soldier shoving a regime goon out of the way to HE can rape an Iraqi child instead is some kind of moral improvement. It isn't, its a disgrace of historic proportions.

Not to mention that the US has funded repressive and abusive dictatorships for decades, and stood to the side while others churned on. I repeat: if you think it was worth invading Iraq then please tell me who you would like to invade next.
The repressive and abusive dictatorships are going away because of the invasion of Iraq.
A blatantly false claim.
In pool you have to call your shot. If not it is called a Sh*t shot. The US called the shot before the war. You in no way have explained how it was the Paul WOlfowitz before teh Invasion of Iraq stated that the idea was to cause a Democratic Tsunami in the Arab world then a democratic tsunami happened and still you claim it "A baltantly false claim"

It happened Ibrahim. Get over it.
http://www.contemporarysecuritypolicy.o ... 2-Tunc.pdf

As I argue in detail below, in developing each of these rationales, Bush
officials relied on certain assumptions. In the case of Iraq’s WMD, the assump-
tion was that Saddam not only intended to harm the US, but that he would also
act irrationally to this end. Saddam’s alleged irrationality has been largely
overlooked by scholars who dismiss the WMD argument as a smokescreen
created by the Bush administration in order to hide its other, less politically
popular, motives to attack Iraq. The underlying assumption of the psycholo-
gical rationale was that a US invasion of Iraq would deter individuals,
groups and regimes from supporting terrorism, by fostering fear and respect
for American authority. Finally, the ideological rationale assumed that the
repressive totalitarian/authoritarian political culture in the Middle East is the
backbone of Islamic fanaticism and terrorism. Hence, democratization was
seen as the best antidote to the dysfunctional political systems and the ills
of totalitarianism in the Middle East


Contemporary Security Policy, Vol.26, No.2 (August 2005), pp.335 – 355
OR as Walid Jumblatt said in 2005:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Feb22.html
"It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq," explains Jumblatt. "I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world." Jumblatt says this spark of democratic revolt is spreading. "The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it."
SO why didn't you do something about the torture of children in Iraq BTW I figured you opposed it.
What have either of us done about Iraq?
Personally I was opposed to Saddam's continued rule since poopi Bush decided that he was not going to get rid of him.
I asked you what you did. If it all comes down to having opinions then that is a low bar.p[/quote] You asked what either of us did. I worked pretty hard to convince people it was a good idea. (especially given the botched invasion of Afghanistan.)
Bush II systematically lied about the pretext for the war, and those lies were exposed after the invasion. Are you saying that you think the main reason for the US invasion was to help children? Why not invade North Korea or Burma then?
Lied? The Bush Admin stretched the truth about Saddam attacking the US with nukes and among the reasons listed above well it is like teh old joke.

A boy is getting ready to go hunting with his father. The father comes into his room and see th eboy putting on tennis shoes. The father asks why not boots and the boy replies "so I can run fast if the bear attacks" The father shook his head and said "Son you can't out run a bear" To which the boy replied "I don't have to out run the bear I just have to out run you"

Image

Once the people of the ME got a close look at what Al Qaeda was actually doing Support for Al Qaeda among Muslims in the ME crashed.
And how many Arab countries have throw off their dictators?
All of them at least once. Most several times. Recall that the entire region was under imperialist and then colonialist rule, and presently none are.
Now why after WWII do you suppose so many ME countries and in fact countries around the world saw their colonizers depart?
Actually the process starts during the First World War. But the two main reasons are the self-destruction of colonial powers in the world wars, and the development of more potent man-portable weapons, guerrilla tactics, and political organization in the aftermath of the Soviet and Chinese revolutions.[/quote]

And the US revolution. As well as the resulting rise to world power of the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_P ... een_Points]
Particularly 5 though do note #12
And when it is being done by your own leader who will likely never be over thrown? What about that? I mean at north Korea It has now been 62 years.
Gaddafi was there for 42, and where is he now? Hey, if North Koreans overthrow their regime I think that's great. What does that have to do with foreign occupation?
Saddam was going no where. He should have been removed after the first gulf war. Instead he was left in power and 100's of thousands more died.
Then the US invaded, and thousands more died.
Well lets see 100,000 were estimated to have been killed immediately after the first gulf war. And many more after that in the following 12 years until the 2003 invasion. Previous to that it is estimated that millions were killed by Saddam.

Total dead in Iraq estimated by Iraqi body count is more than 150,000 after 10 years by all sources. The US is not killing anyone in Iraq now and neither is Saddam.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: The Iraq Thread

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:Why can't you acknowledge that Saddam tortures children without making the false claim that the US does?
a) Its not a false claim. The US military murders, rapes, and tortures.
You stated that the US military tortures children.
It does. I consider raping children, or murdering their parents in front of them, to be forms of torture. Not to mention the day-to-day abuses and dehumanization they experienced as the victims of an occupation.
Except you have done nothing to show that rape of children was a common occurrence by US forces. IE in any large group of people there are going to be bad people.
Likewise, the majority of the Republican Guard didn't spend all day raping children either. But its easier to generalize about foreign soldiers than your own, I understand that. The people in Iraq didn't notice much of a difference, and when they did they seem to have preferred the pre-US experience, and are no doubt very glad that the US has left now, so at best its a push.

Why artificial? I am outraged and disgusted by the reported conduct of the US military in Iraq.
Most of the deaths in Iraq occurred at the hands of Iraqi militias. If you want to make claims it is the fault of the US for overthrowing Saddam then that is one thing. To make claims it was US forces themselves is another.
The US military disgraced itself in Iraq through its conduct. What militias may have done is another subject entirely. Except of course those instigated and paid by the US. This "yeah well somebody else also did something bad" is not a valid defense of the US military.


There was 100's of thousands of US troops in and back out of Iraq. There is no evidence that the number of child rapists was anything greater than the civilian population as a whole. Point in fact it was rumored that little Saddam Hussein starred in gay kiddie porn when he was young.
Uh... ok.
How about actually addressing the point?
You tell me the "point in fact" that you are attempting to raise with that anecdote.



Arguably the US had more responsibility for Iraq seeing as they armed and supported Saddam for decades. Still, the US invasion and occupation was a failure riddled with war crimes, and many Iraqis today consider the US military worse than Saddam.
You have some proof of that other than you or someone just says so?
Just Iraqis interviewed as part of the "ten year anniversary." So I guess its anecdotal. Iraqi tells camera/journalist, which tells me. Do you have some counter-evidence?


The repressive and abusive dictatorships are going away because of the invasion of Iraq.
A blatantly false claim.
In pool you have to call your shot. If not it is called a Sh*t shot. The US called the shot before the war. You in no way have explained how it was the Paul WOlfowitz before teh Invasion of Iraq stated that the idea was to cause a Democratic Tsunami in the Arab world then a democratic tsunami happened and still you claim it "A baltantly false claim"

It happened Ibrahim. Get over it.
It is a pathetic lie dreamed up by American war criminals and their supporters. A fantasy to gloss over the lies that provoked the invasion, the disgrace of the occupation, and the total irrelevance of the US in the uprisings that followed in North Africa. Its such a pathetic lie that only people who literally know nothing about the region - past of present - believe it. I.e. American hicks who care more about glossing over the previous administration than right or wrong. To repeat it marks you out as a rube, and I'm not interested who tricked you into repeating it.



I asked you what you did. If it all comes down to having opinions then that is a low bar.
You asked what either of us did. I worked pretty hard to convince people it was a good idea. (especially given the botched invasion of Afghanistan.)
That's a pretty pathetic standard for "action," but insofar as you took action you were on the wrong side.

Bush II systematically lied about the pretext for the war, and those lies were exposed after the invasion. Are you saying that you think the main reason for the US invasion was to help children? Why not invade North Korea or Burma then?
Lied? The Bush Admin stretched the truth about Saddam attacking the US with nukes and among the reasons listed above well it is like teh old joke.
Bush II and company talked up a wide array of "WMDs," none of which were found. Not just "nukes" but chemical weapons, bioweapons, and so forth. And that he was ready, willing, and able to use them. Then none were found, and so your excuse for that is what?

Once the people of the ME got a close look at what Al Qaeda was actually doing Support for Al Qaeda among Muslims in the ME crashed.
So, in your view, the point of invading Iraq was to form al-Qaeda subsidiaries there that could disgust the locals with their antics? I guess that odd plan was worth lying to the US public, destroying the reputation of the US military, and killing however many thousands of people, and spending a trillion dollars. Maybe.



Now why after WWII do you suppose so many ME countries and in fact countries around the world saw their colonizers depart?
Actually the process starts during the First World War. But the two main reasons are the self-destruction of colonial powers in the world wars, and the development of more potent man-portable weapons, guerrilla tactics, and political organization in the aftermath of the Soviet and Chinese revolutions.
And the US revolution.


Nothing happened in the Arab states as a result of the US revolution. Again, your trying to make other peoples' stories entirely about your own country. Its self-aggrandizing fiction.



Saddam was going no where. He should have been removed after the first gulf war. Instead he was left in power and 100's of thousands more died.
Then the US invaded, and thousands more died.
Well lets see 100,000 were estimated to have been killed immediately after the first gulf war. And many more after that in the following 12 years until the 2003 invasion. Previous to that it is estimated that millions were killed by Saddam.

Total dead in Iraq estimated by Iraqi body count is more than 150,000 after 10 years by all sources. The US is not killing anyone in Iraq now and neither is Saddam.
You said "100's of thousands" I said "thousands," so thank you for correcting your wildly inaccurate numbers.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: The Iraq Thread

Post by Doc »

Ibrahim wrote:Likewise, the majority of the Republican Guard didn't spend all day raping children either. But its easier to generalize about foreign soldiers than your own, I understand that. The people in Iraq didn't notice much of a difference, and when they did they seem to have preferred the pre-US experience, and are no doubt very glad that the US has left now, so at best its a push.
It wasn't about the people of Iraq loving America It was about planting the seeds of ideas that Iraq could be a thriving democracy. But for that to happen it is up to Iraqis to do it from here out.

Now the part you snipped out. So I take it that you concur with what I said?:


Doc wrote:In pool you have to call your shot. If not it is called a Sh*t shot. The US called the shot before the war. You in no way have explained how it was the Paul WOlfowitz before teh Invasion of Iraq stated that the idea was to cause a Democratic Tsunami in the Arab world then a democratic tsunami happened and still you claim it "A baltantly false claim"

It happened Ibrahim. Get over it.

http://www.contemporarysecuritypolicy.o ... 2-Tunc.pdf

As I argue in detail below, in developing each of these rationales, Bush
officials relied on certain assumptions. In the case of Iraq’s WMD, the assump-
tion was that Saddam not only intended to harm the US, but that he would also
act irrationally to this end. Saddam’s alleged irrationality has been largely
overlooked by scholars who dismiss the WMD argument as a smokescreen
created by the Bush administration in order to hide its other, less politically
popular, motives to attack Iraq. The underlying assumption of the psycholo-
gical rationale was that a US invasion of Iraq would deter individuals,
groups and regimes from supporting terrorism, by fostering fear and respect
for American authority. Finally, the ideological rationale assumed that the
repressive totalitarian/authoritarian political culture in the Middle East is the
backbone of Islamic fanaticism and terrorism. Hence, democratization was
seen as the best antidote to the dysfunctional political systems and the ills
of totalitarianism in the Middle East

Contemporary Security Policy, Vol.26, No.2 (August 2005), pp.335 – 355



OR as Walid Jumblatt said in 2005:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Feb22.html

"It's strange for me to say it, but this process of change has started because of the American invasion of Iraq," explains Jumblatt. "I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, 8 million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world." Jumblatt says this spark of democratic revolt is spreading. "The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it."



Ibrahim wrote:Bush II systematically lied about the pretext for the war, and those lies were exposed after the invasion. Are you saying that you think the main reason for the US invasion was to help children? Why not invade North Korea or Burma then?



Doc wrote:Lied? The Bush Admin stretched the truth about Saddam attacking the US with nukes and among the reasons listed above well it is like the old joke.

A boy is getting ready to go hunting with his father. The father comes into his room and see th eboy putting on tennis shoes. The father asks why not boots and the boy replies "so I can run fast if the bear attacks" The father shook his head and said "Son you can't out run a bear" To which the boy replied "I don't have to out run the bear I just have to out run you"

Image

Once the people of the ME got a close look at what Al Qaeda was actually doing Support for Al Qaeda among Muslims in the ME crashed.

And how many Arab countries have throw off their dictators?


Ibrahim wrote: All of them at least once. Most several times. Recall that the entire region was under imperialist and then colonialist rule, and presently none are.



Now why after WWII do you suppose so many ME countries and in fact countries around the world saw their colonizers depart?


Ibrahim wrote:Actually the process starts during the First World War. But the two main reasons are the self-destruction of colonial powers in the world wars, and the development of more potent man-portable weapons, guerrilla tactics, and political organization in the aftermath of the Soviet and Chinese revolutions.
And the US revolution. As well as the resulting rise to world power of the US:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_P ... een_Points]
Particularly 5 though do note #12

And when it is being done by your own leader who will likely never be over thrown? What about that? I mean at north Korea It has now been 62 years.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: The Iraq Thread

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:Likewise, the majority of the Republican Guard didn't spend all day raping children either. But its easier to generalize about foreign soldiers than your own, I understand that. The people in Iraq didn't notice much of a difference, and when they did they seem to have preferred the pre-US experience, and are no doubt very glad that the US has left now, so at best its a push.
It wasn't about the people of Iraq loving America It was about planting the seeds of ideas that Iraq could be a thriving democracy. But for that to happen it is up to Iraqis to do it from here out.

What a sorry excuse for American brutality incompetence. You think your uniformed war criminals were "planting the seeds of democracy" by paying Shia militias to fight Sunni tribes on the basis of their being "Baathists," then paying Sunni militants to fight the Shia militias once they grew beyond US control? You invade a country, destroy every institution, ferment sectarian violence, brutalize the population, leave, and then say "well, its your fault if this place doesn't look like Sweden." Laughable.


Now the part you snipped out. So I take it that you concur with what I said?
I've already responded to the text you are re-posting, and you re-posted it without my replies and falsely claimed that I ignored it. Why?
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: The Iraq Thread

Post by Doc »

Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:Likewise, the majority of the Republican Guard didn't spend all day raping children either. But its easier to generalize about foreign soldiers than your own, I understand that. The people in Iraq didn't notice much of a difference, and when they did they seem to have preferred the pre-US experience, and are no doubt very glad that the US has left now, so at best its a push.
It wasn't about the people of Iraq loving America It was about planting the seeds of ideas that Iraq could be a thriving democracy. But for that to happen it is up to Iraqis to do it from here out.

What a sorry excuse for American brutality incompetence. You think your uniformed war criminals were "planting the seeds of democracy" by paying Shia militias to fight Sunni tribes on the basis of their being "Baathists," then paying Sunni militants to fight the Shia militias once they grew beyond US control? You invade a country, destroy every institution, ferment sectarian violence, brutalize the population, leave, and then say "well, its your fault if this place doesn't look like Sweden." Laughable.
Laughable to one that doesn't show any evidence to back up his claims. BTW just because the sectarian violence of Saddam was state sponsored doesn't mean it is not sectarian violence to brutalize the population


Now the part you snipped out. So I take it that you concur with what I said?
I've already responded to the text you are re-posting, and you re-posted it without my replies and falsely claimed that I ignored it. Why?
No you didn't. You snipped it out of your previous reply. Shame on you Ibrahim.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: The Iraq Thread

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:No you didn't. You snipped it out of your previous reply. Shame on you Ibrahim.
I can't believe you'd resort to such a blatant lie.

My comments, which you deleted then falsely claimed I never made, are recorded two posts above. Who do you think you are fooling with this dishonesty?
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: The Iraq Thread

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:Likewise, the majority of the Republican Guard didn't spend all day raping children either. But its easier to generalize about foreign soldiers than your own, I understand that. The people in Iraq didn't notice much of a difference, and when they did they seem to have preferred the pre-US experience, and are no doubt very glad that the US has left now, so at best its a push.
It wasn't about the people of Iraq loving America It was about planting the seeds of ideas that Iraq could be a thriving democracy. But for that to happen it is up to Iraqis to do it from here out.

What a sorry excuse for American brutality incompetence. You think your uniformed war criminals were "planting the seeds of democracy" by paying Shia militias to fight Sunni tribes on the basis of their being "Baathists," then paying Sunni militants to fight the Shia militias once they grew beyond US control? You invade a country, destroy every institution, ferment sectarian violence, brutalize the population, leave, and then say "well, its your fault if this place doesn't look like Sweden." Laughable.
Laughable to one that doesn't show any evidence to back up his claims. BTW just because the sectarian violence of Saddam was state sponsored doesn't mean it is not sectarian violence to brutalize the population
Two problems with this barely-coherent reply:

1. I described events which took place during the US occupation. You aren't providing any alternative narrative and the only "evidence" you've linked in the entire thread are polls and op-ed pieces. So you haven't provided anything except your claims and now you are disputing basic facts about the war.

2. There wasn't ongoing sectarian violence during the Saddam era. There was ethnic violence against Kurds, and sectarian manipulation, but widespread sectarian violence is a product of the US occupation, beginning in about 2006. There was some Shia agitation during the Saddam era, mostly fermented by SCIRI and funded by Iran, but even they were totally surpassed and made obsolete by the Shia militias unleashed post-2003. Notably Sadr on the extremist side, and the sudden nationwide influence of al-Sistani.

So I wonder if you even know what you are talking about.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: The Iraq Thread

Post by Doc »

Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:Likewise, the majority of the Republican Guard didn't spend all day raping children either. But its easier to generalize about foreign soldiers than your own, I understand that. The people in Iraq didn't notice much of a difference, and when they did they seem to have preferred the pre-US experience, and are no doubt very glad that the US has left now, so at best its a push.
It wasn't about the people of Iraq loving America It was about planting the seeds of ideas that Iraq could be a thriving democracy. But for that to happen it is up to Iraqis to do it from here out.

What a sorry excuse for American brutality incompetence. You think your uniformed war criminals were "planting the seeds of democracy" by paying Shia militias to fight Sunni tribes on the basis of their being "Baathists," then paying Sunni militants to fight the Shia militias once they grew beyond US control? You invade a country, destroy every institution, ferment sectarian violence, brutalize the population, leave, and then say "well, its your fault if this place doesn't look like Sweden." Laughable.
Laughable to one that doesn't show any evidence to back up his claims. BTW just because the sectarian violence of Saddam was state sponsored doesn't mean it is not sectarian violence to brutalize the population
Two problems with this barely-coherent reply:

1. I described events which took place during the US occupation. You aren't providing any alternative narrative and the only "evidence" you've linked in the entire thread are polls and op-ed pieces. So you haven't provided anything except your claims and now you are disputing basic facts about the war.
Not true.
2. There wasn't ongoing sectarian violence during the Saddam era.
There most certainly was you just don't want to call it that because it hurts your narrative

There was ethnic violence against Kurds, and sectarian manipulation, but widespread sectarian violence is a product of the US occupation, beginning in about 2006. There was some Shia agitation during the Saddam era, mostly fermented by SCIRI and funded by Iran, but even they were totally surpassed and made obsolete by the Shia militias unleashed post-2003. Notably Sadr on the extremist side, and the sudden nationwide influence of al-Sistani.
Saddam conducted ethnic cleansing against both the Kurds and the Shia in the decades prior to the US invasion. [/quote]
So I wonder if you even know what you are talking about.
I was talking about Iraq What are you talking about?
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: The Iraq Thread

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:Likewise, the majority of the Republican Guard didn't spend all day raping children either. But its easier to generalize about foreign soldiers than your own, I understand that. The people in Iraq didn't notice much of a difference, and when they did they seem to have preferred the pre-US experience, and are no doubt very glad that the US has left now, so at best its a push.
It wasn't about the people of Iraq loving America It was about planting the seeds of ideas that Iraq could be a thriving democracy. But for that to happen it is up to Iraqis to do it from here out.

What a sorry excuse for American brutality incompetence. You think your uniformed war criminals were "planting the seeds of democracy" by paying Shia militias to fight Sunni tribes on the basis of their being "Baathists," then paying Sunni militants to fight the Shia militias once they grew beyond US control? You invade a country, destroy every institution, ferment sectarian violence, brutalize the population, leave, and then say "well, its your fault if this place doesn't look like Sweden." Laughable.
Laughable to one that doesn't show any evidence to back up his claims. BTW just because the sectarian violence of Saddam was state sponsored doesn't mean it is not sectarian violence to brutalize the population
Two problems with this barely-coherent reply:

1. I described events which took place during the US occupation. You aren't providing any alternative narrative and the only "evidence" you've linked in the entire thread are polls and op-ed pieces. So you haven't provided anything except your claims and now you are disputing basic facts about the war.
Not true.
Oh.

2. There wasn't ongoing sectarian violence during the Saddam era.
There most certainly was you just don't want to call it that because it hurts your narrative
Or you are fabricating it because it helps your narrative.

There was ethnic violence against Kurds, and sectarian manipulation, but widespread sectarian violence is a product of the US occupation, beginning in about 2006. There was some Shia agitation during the Saddam era, mostly fermented by SCIRI and funded by Iran, but even they were totally surpassed and made obsolete by the Shia militias unleashed post-2003. Notably Sadr on the extremist side, and the sudden nationwide influence of al-Sistani.
Saddam conducted ethnic cleansing against both the Kurds and the Shia in the decades prior to the US invasion.
Kurds = ethnic, not sectarian. Shia = Saddam crushing political opposition originating in Iran via SCIRI.

Post-US occupation there are sectarian militias killing one another on a daily basis after resentments were exacerbated by the occupation forces. There was nothing like current Sunni-Shia violence in pre-invasion Iraq.

So I wonder if you even know what you are talking about.
I was talking about Iraq What are you talking about?
Iraq. I guess somebody is wrong, then.
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: The Iraq Thread

Post by Doc »

Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:
Doc wrote:
Ibrahim wrote:Likewise, the majority of the Republican Guard didn't spend all day raping children either. But its easier to generalize about foreign soldiers than your own, I understand that. The people in Iraq didn't notice much of a difference, and when they did they seem to have preferred the pre-US experience, and are no doubt very glad that the US has left now, so at best its a push.
It wasn't about the people of Iraq loving America It was about planting the seeds of ideas that Iraq could be a thriving democracy. But for that to happen it is up to Iraqis to do it from here out.

What a sorry excuse for American brutality incompetence. You think your uniformed war criminals were "planting the seeds of democracy" by paying Shia militias to fight Sunni tribes on the basis of their being "Baathists," then paying Sunni militants to fight the Shia militias once they grew beyond US control? You invade a country, destroy every institution, ferment sectarian violence, brutalize the population, leave, and then say "well, its your fault if this place doesn't look like Sweden." Laughable.
Laughable to one that doesn't show any evidence to back up his claims. BTW just because the sectarian violence of Saddam was state sponsored doesn't mean it is not sectarian violence to brutalize the population
Two problems with this barely-coherent reply:

1. I described events which took place during the US occupation. You aren't providing any alternative narrative and the only "evidence" you've linked in the entire thread are polls and op-ed pieces. So you haven't provided anything except your claims and now you are disputing basic facts about the war.
Doc wrote:Not true.
Ibrahim wrote:Oh.

2. There wasn't ongoing sectarian violence during the Saddam era.
Doc wrote:There most certainly was you just don't want to call it that because it hurts your narrative
Ibrahim wrote:Or you are fabricating it because it helps your narrative.
I have given links to exactly what I am talking about that are not simply op ed and are factual in nature wth links. You have expressed your opinion. So lets see which "style" is more credible? ;)

There was ethnic violence against Kurds, and sectarian manipulation, but widespread sectarian violence is a product of the US occupation, beginning in about 2006. There was some Shia agitation during the Saddam era, mostly fermented by SCIRI and funded by Iran, but even they were totally surpassed and made obsolete by the Shia militias unleashed post-2003. Notably Sadr on the extremist side, and the sudden nationwide influence of al-Sistani.
Saddam conducted ethnic cleansing against both the Kurds and the Shia in the decades prior to the US invasion.
Kurds = ethnic, not sectarian. Shia = Saddam crushing political opposition originating in Iran via SCIRI


Saddam killed 100's of thousand because he was Sunni and the Shites weren't. That is inherently sectariain violence. As for all the dead Kurds at Saddam's hands you could argue they are some how "less dead" then they would have been from "sectarian" violence.
Post-US occupation there are sectarian militias killing one another on a daily basis after resentments were exacerbated by the occupation forces. There was nothing like current Sunni-Shia violence in pre-invasion Iraq.
You have quite a selective memory. Post US invasion Shia were told not to take revenge in response to Sunni/Al Qaeda violence against them by Sistani. And for quite a while they didn't.


[quote
So I wonder if you even know what you are talking about.
I was talking about Iraq What are you talking about?
Iraq. I guess somebody is wrong, then.
[/quote]

I guess so.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: The Iraq Thread

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:I have given links to exactly what I am talking about that are not simply op ed and are factual in nature wth links. You have expressed your opinion. So lets see which "style" is more credible?
Nothing you have linked in this thread supports your claim that there was widespread sectarian violence in Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

Kurds = ethnic, not sectarian. Shia = Saddam crushing political opposition originating in Iran via SCIRI


Saddam killed 100's of thousand because he was Sunni and the Shites weren't. That is inherently sectariain violence. As for all the dead Kurds at Saddam's hands you could argue they are some how "less dead" then they would have been from "sectarian" violence.
Your numbers here are wildly false. "100's of thousands" of Shiites were not killed by Saddam Hussein in sectarian conflicts. There isn't any evidence to support this ridiculous claim. It is correct to say that under Hussein the Sunni minority was politically dominant, but there were Christians and Shiites in Saddam's senior leadership and the claim that he killed "100's of thousands" of Shia just for being Shia is simply false.

The greatest victims of mass-murder by the Saddam Hussein regime were the Kurds, who are both Sunni and Shia.


Post-US occupation there are sectarian militias killing one another on a daily basis after resentments were exacerbated by the occupation forces. There was nothing like current Sunni-Shia violence in pre-invasion Iraq.
You have quite a selective memory. Post US invasion Shia were told not to take revenge in response to Sunni/Al Qaeda violence against them by Sistani. And for quite a while they didn't.
Then they did, while the US occupation was still in progress. At one time or another the US paid off the Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish factions for different reasons. And all three looted arms depots after the US disbanded the Iraqi army. So not only were tensions exploited by the occupation for short-term goals, but the factions were armed and funded as well.
User avatar
Hans Bulvai
Posts: 1056
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:30 pm
Location: Underneath everything

Re: The Iraq Thread

Post by Hans Bulvai »

OR as Walid Jumblatt said in 2005:
Walid Jumblatt... :lol: :lol:

Hey Doc. Israel tortures children as well. What are you going to do about it?

Mubarak did too. What did you do about about it?

http://archive.truthout.org/article/dah ... s-children
Dahr Jamail | Easily Dispensable: Iraq's Children


Easily Dispensable: Iraq's Children
By Dahr Jamail
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Monday 22 May 2006

Cherishing children is the mark of a civilized society.
- Joan Ganz Cooney



If, as I would like to believe, the above quote suggests all children and not merely those born in Western democracies, I am no longer certain that we live in a civilized society.

That women and children suffer the most during times of war is not a new phenomenon. It is a reality as old as war itself. What Rumsfeld, Rice and other war criminals of the Cheney administration prefer to call "collateral damage" translates in English as the inexcusable murder of and other irreparable harm done to women, children and the elderly during any military offensive.

US foreign policy in the Middle East manifests itself most starkly in its impact on the children of Iraq. It is they who continue to pay with their lives and futures for the brutal follies of our administration. Starvation under sanctions, and death and suffering during war and occupation are their lot. Since the beginning of the occupation, Iraqi children have been affected worst by the violence generated by the occupying forces and the freedom fighters.

While I had witnessed several instances of this from the time of my first trip to Iraq in November 2003, I was shaken by a close encounter with it, a year later, in November 2004.

In a major Baghdad hospital, 12-year-old Fatima Harouz lay in her bed, dazed, amidst a crowded hospital room. She limply waved her bruised arm at the flies that buzzed over the bed. Her shins, shattered by bullets when American soldiers fired through the front door of her house, were both covered in casts. Small plastic drainage bags filled with red fluid sat upon her abdomen, where she had taken shrapnel from another bullet.

She was from Latifiya, a city just south of Baghdad. Three days before I saw her, soldiers had attacked her home. Her mother, standing with us in the hospital, said, "They attacked our home and there weren't even any resistance fighters in our area." Her brother had been shot and killed, his wife wounded, and their home ransacked by soldiers. "Before they left, they killed all of our chickens," added Fatima's mother, her eyes a mixture of fear, shock and rage. A doctor who was with us as Fatima's mother narrated the story looked at me and sternly asked, "This is the freedom ... in their Disney Land are there kids just like this?"

The doctors' anger was mild if we consider the magnitude of suffering that has been inflicted upon the children of Iraq as a direct result of first the US-backed sanctions and then the failed US occupation.

In a report released by the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) on May 2nd of this year, one out of three Iraqi children is malnourished and underweight.

The report states that 25% of Iraqi children between the ages of six months and five years old suffer from either acute or chronic malnutrition. In addition, the Integrated Regional Information Network (IRIN) press release on the matter added, "A 2004 Living Conditions Survey indicated a decrease in mortality rates among children under five years old since 1999. However, the results of a September 2005 Food Security and Vulnerability Analysis - commissioned by Iraq's Central Organization for Statistics and Information Technology, the World Food Program and UNICEF - showed worsening conditions since the April 2003 US-led invasion of the country."

Also this month, on May 15th , a news story about the same UN-backed government survey highlighted that "people are struggling to cope three years after US-forces overthrew Saddam Hussein." The report added that "Children are ... major victims of food insecurity," and described the situation as "alarming." The story continued, "A total of four million Iraqis, roughly 15 percent of the population, were in dire need of humanitarian aid including food, up from 11 percent in a 2003 report, the survey of more than 20,000 Iraqi households found.... Decades of conflict and economic sanctions have had serious effects on Iraqis. Their consequences have been rising unemployment, illiteracy and, for some families, the loss of wage earners."

But the hearts of small children are delicate organs. A cruel beginning in this world can twist them into curious shapes.
- Carson McCullers



Iraq's ministries of Health and Planning carried out the survey with support from the UN World Food Program and UNICEF. A spokesman for UNICEF's Iraq Support Center in Amman, Jordan, David Singh, told Reuters that the number of acutely malnourished children in Iraq had more than doubled, from 4% during the last year of Saddam's rule to at least 9% in 2005. He also said, "Until there is a period of relative stability in Iraq we are going to continue to face these kinds of problems." UNICEF's special representative for Iraq, Roger Wright, commenting on the dire effects of the situation, said, "This can irreversibly hamper the young child's optimal mental/cognitive development, not just their physical development."

This past March, an article titled "Garbage Dump Second Home for Iraqi Children" addressed the appalling situation in the northern, Kurdish-controlled Iraqi city of Sulaimaniyah where young children assist their families in searching the city garbage dumps. It said that children as young as seven often accompany their parents to the dumps before school, in order to look for reusable items such as shoes, clothing and electrical equipment which is then resold in order to augment the family income.

This disturbing news is not really news in Baghdad. Back in December 2004 I saw children living with their families in the main dump of the capital city.

Poverty in Iraq has plummeted acutely during the invasion and occupation. Those who were already surviving on the margins due to years of deprivation have sunk further, and the children of such families have recourse to no nutrition, no health care, no education, no present and no future. Those from less unfortunate backgrounds are now suffering because the family wage earner has been killed, detained, or lost employment. Or the source of the family's income, a shop, factory or farm have been destroyed, or simply because it is impossible to feed a family under the existing economic conditions of high costs and low to nil income in Iraq.

As execrable as the current situation is for Iraqi children, most of the world media, appallingly, does not see it as a story to be covered. Even back in November 2004, surveys conducted by the UN, aid agencies and the interim Iraqi government showed that acute malnutrition among young children had nearly doubled since the US-led invasion took place in the spring of 2004.

A Washington Post story, "Children Pay Cost of Iraq's Chaos," read, "After the rate of acute malnutrition among children younger than 5 steadily declined to 4 percent two years ago, it shot up to 7.7 percent this year, according to a study conducted by Iraq's Health Ministry in cooperation with Norway's Institute for Applied International Studies and the U.N. Development Program. The new figure translates to roughly 400,000 Iraqi children suffering from "wasting," a condition characterized by chronic diarrhea and dangerous deficiencies of protein."

Not only is the US occupation starving Iraq's children, but occupation forces regularly detain them as well. It is common knowledge in Iraq that there have been child prisoners in the most odious prisons, such as Abu Ghraib, since early on in the occupation. While most, if not all, corporate media outlets in the US have been loath to visit the subject, the Sunday Herald in Scotland reported back in August 2004 that "coalition forces are holding more than 100 children in jails such as Abu Ghraib. Witnesses claim that the detainees - some as young as 10 - are also being subjected to rape and torture."

The story read, "It was early last October that Kasim Mehaddi Hilas says he witnessed the rape of a boy prisoner aged about 15 in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. 'The kid was hurting very bad and they covered all the doors with sheets,' he said in a statement given to investigators probing prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib. 'Then, when I heard the screaming I climbed the door ... and I saw [the soldier's name is deleted] who was wearing a military uniform." Hilas, who was himself threatened with being sexually assaulted in Abu Ghraib, then described in horrific detail how the soldier raped 'the little kid.'"

The newspaper's investigation at that time concluded that there were as many as 107 children being held by occupation forces, although their names were not known, nor their location or the length of their detention.

In June 2004 an internal UNICEF report, which was not made public, noted widespread arrest and detention of Iraqi children by US and UK forces. A section of the report titled "Children in Conflict with the Law or with Coalition Forces," stated, "In July and August 2003, several meetings were conducted with CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) ... and Ministry of Justice to address issues related to juvenile justice and the situation of children detained by the coalition forces ... UNICEF is working through a variety of channels to try and learn more about conditions for children who are imprisoned or detained, and to ensure that their rights are respected."

Another section of the report added, "Information on the number, age, gender and conditions of incarceration is limited. In Basra and Karbala children arrested for alleged activities targeting the occupying forces are reported to be routinely transferred to an internee facility in Um Qasr. The categorization of these children as 'internees' is worrying since it implies indefinite holding without contact with family, expectation of trial or due process." The report went on to add, "A detention centre for children was established in Baghdad, where according to ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) a significant number of children were detained. UNICEF was informed that the coalition forces were planning to transfer all children in adult facilities to this 'specialized' child detention centre. In July 2003, UNICEF requested a visit to the centre but access was denied. Poor security in the area of the detention centre has prevented visits by independent observers like the ICRC since last December [2003]."

A section of the report which I found very pertinent, as I'd already witnessed this occurring in Iraq, stated, "The perceived unjust detention of Iraqi males, including youths, for suspected activities against the occupying forces has become one of the leading causes for the mounting frustration among Iraqi youth and the potential for radicalization of this population group."

On December 17, 2003, at the al-Shahid Adnan Kherala secondary school in Baghdad, I witnessed US forces detain 16 children who had held a mock, non-violent, pro-Saddam Hussein the previous day. While forces from the First Armored Division sealed the school with two large tanks, helicopters, several Bradley fighting vehicles and at least 10 Humvees, soldiers loaded the children into a covered truck and drove them to their base. Meanwhile, the rest of the students remained locked inside the school until the US military began to exit the area.

Shortly thereafter the doors were unlocked, releasing the frightened students who flocked out the doors. The youngest were 12 years old, and none of the students were older than 18. They ran out, many in tears, while others were enraged as they kicked and shook the front gate. My interpreter and I were surrounded by frenzied students who yelled, "This is the democracy? This is the freedom? You see what the Americans are doing to us here?"

Another student cried out to us, "They took several of my friends! Why are they taking them to prison? For throwing rocks?" A few blocks away we spoke with a smaller group of students who had run from the school (in panic). One student who was crying yelled to me, "Why are they doing this to us? We are only kids!"

The tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles that were guarding the perimeter of the school began to rumble down the street beside us, on their passage out. Several young boys with tears streaming down their faces picked up stones and hurled them at the tanks as they drove by. Imagine my horror when I saw the US soldiers on top of the Bradleys begin firing their M-16's above our heads as we ducked inside a taxi. A soldier on another Bradley, behind the first, passed and fired randomly above our heads as well. Kids and pedestrians ran for cover into the shops and wherever possible.

I remember a little boy, not more than 13 years old, holding a stone and standing at the edge of the street glaring at the Bradleys as they rumbled past. Another soldier riding atop another passing Bradley pulled out his pistol and aimed it at the boy's head and kept him in his sights until the vehicle rolled out of sight.

One of the students hiding behind our taxi screamed to me, "Who are the terrorists here now? You have seen this yourself! We are school kids!"

The very next month, in January 2004, I was in an area on the outskirts of Baghdad that had been pulverized by "Operation Iron Grip." I spoke with a man at his small farm house. His three year old boy, Halaf Ziad Halaf, walked up to me and with a worried look on his face said, "I have seen the Americans here with their tanks. They want to attack us."

His uncle, who had joined us for tea, leaned over to me and said, "The Americans are creating the terrorists here by hurting people and causing their relatives to fight against them. Even this little boy will grow up hating the Americans because of their policy here."

The slaughter, starvation, detention, torture and sexual assault of Iraq's children at the hands of US soldiers or by proxy via US foreign policy, is not a recent phenomenon. It is true that the present US administration has been brazen and blatant in its crimes in Iraq, but those willing to bear witness must not forget that Bill Clinton and his minions played an equally, if not even more devastating role in the assault on the children of Iraq.

On May 12, 1996, Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked by Lesley Stahl on "60 Minutes" about the effects of US sanctions against Iraq, "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"

In a response which has now become notorious, Albright replied, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it."

We are guilty of many errors and many faults but our worst crime is abandoning the children, neglecting the fountain of life. Many of the things we need can wait. The child cannot. Right now is the time his bones are being formed, his blood is being made, and his senses are being developed. To him we cannot answer "Tomorrow." His name is "Today."
- Gabriela Mistral



To all Americans who, despite voluminous evidence to the contrary, continue to believe that they are supporting a war for democracy in Iraq, I would like to say, the way Iraq is headed it will have little use for democracy and freedom. We must find ways to stop the immoral, soulless, repugnant occupation if we want the children of Iraq to see any future at all.
I don't buy supremacy
Media chief
You menace me
The people you say
'Cause all the crime
Wake up motherfucker
And smell the slime
User avatar
Doc
Posts: 12562
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 6:10 pm

Re: The Iraq Thread

Post by Doc »

Hans Bulvai wrote:
OR as Walid Jumblatt said in 2005:
Walid Jumblatt... :lol: :lol:

Hey Doc. Israel tortures children as well. What are you going to do about it?

Mubarak did too. What did you do about about it?
Mubarack isn't there anymore due to a Iraq invasion inspired Arab Spring. So I guess we can check that one off our list. But in general we should do what is practical to do. I keep hearing about Israelis torturing children from you. But I don't see any evidence you have posted. I do remember two israeli soldiers breaking the arms of two boys for throwing stones at them. That is why the Israelis were so desperate to get Arafat to come to the west bank after the first intafada. It was the only way they could stop it. IF as yo uclaim the Israelis are torturing children all you have to do to end it is expose that to the light of day.

[qoute]

http://archive.truthout.org/article/dah ... s-children
Dahr Jamail | Easily Dispensable: Iraq's Children
The US is no longer in Iraq. Saddam without US intervention would still be there. This guy complains of 107 children being held in prison. Then an unknown number But he does not really say what they are being held for. IE this guy talks but outside of a UN report that somehow was not made public he doesn't really give anything other than his opinion. Just opinion.
On May 12, 1996, Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked by Lesley Stahl on "60 Minutes" about the effects of US sanctions against Iraq, "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?"

In a response which has now become notorious, Albright replied, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it."
And it is well documented Saddam made a point of trying to claim as many children as he could died from the sanctions.(funny how you don't want to ever mention or acknowledge that) Which again just goes to show that he should have been removed in 1991.



To all Americans who, despite voluminous evidence to the contrary, continue to believe that they are supporting a war for democracy in Iraq, I would like to say, the way Iraq is headed it will have little use for democracy and freedom. We must find ways to stop the immoral, soulless, repugnant occupation if we want the children of Iraq to see any future at all.
[/quote]

Again the US in no longer in Iraq. It is up to the people of Iraq from here on out. IF you think they are not up to the task of building a democracy then that is *your opinion* and we'll see.
"I fancied myself as some kind of god....It is a sort of disease when you consider yourself some kind of god, the creator of everything, but I feel comfortable about it now since I began to live it out.” -- George Soros
Ibrahim
Posts: 6524
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:06 am

Re: The Iraq Thread

Post by Ibrahim »

Doc wrote:Again the US in no longer in Iraq. It is up to the people of Iraq from here on out. IF you think they are not up to the task of building a democracy then that is *your opinion* and we'll see.
This is true enough, except that you keep forgetting that the US occupation caused such a huge amount of damage to Iraq, both physically and politically. It's like telling somebody that its their job to keep their house clear after you drove you crash your car into their living room.

There is a kind of statute of limitations on this kind of thing, it wouldn't make sense to still be blaming the US in 2123, but the US just left after wrecking the place. Too early for Americans to shake their heads and say "welp, that's Iraqis for ya."
Post Reply