What Iraqis really think

[Michael0701]

No argument here, the US forces are occupying Iraq right now. I guess the term can be both negative as well as positive.

 

[mo.mentum]

I don't think so. Occupation is bad. No occupation has ever ended peacefully unless the occupied are willing. Iraqis obviously are not.

 

[Michael0701]

".....unless the occupied are willing."


I gotta say, I finally finished watching a tape I had recorded quite some time ago. It was a History Channel broadcast of Saddam's savagery, his son's savagery, and how the regime did business (I believe I have found a new definition for the term inhuman). Assuming that it was, let's say %75 accurate, there must be more than a few "willing occupants". The question is, as was brought up earlier, when are the Iraqi people going to feel "free" enough to accept that the goal of the mission/war/occupation is to allow them to live without the fear of that perverse, murderous, tyrant Saddam (and his clones). Even if you are the most cynical person and believe that this was a war for control of oil (I do not), you have to admit that their lives will be better without Saddam. The occupation is short term, while the result has and will change their lives for the better in the long run.

It's easy for me to sit here in the comfort of my American lifestyle and wonder why they aren't embracing us. They are some very traumatized people. They have to be given time, and shown that americans are a compassionate people. I know that there is a very strong force of evil that is working to foil that. And it's that evil that needs to be crushed.

 

[mo.mentum]

You have to understand it from the point of view of Arabic culture and society. It is 1000 times better to be ruled by a local tyrant than occupied by foreign forces.

Sure, NO ONE liked Saddam, very true. But they should have been the one removing Saddam themselves. There's a bad history of Western interference in the area. You know, colonialism and imperialism of the 18-19-20th centuries.

People still remember and they see the latest occupation as an extension of that. Forget Saddam's savaegry, we all agree, even Iraqis, that he was bad. BUT, at least there was order when he was around, Iraq has turned into a chaotic hotbed.

And they surely didn't ask the Americans to come in, destroy their infrastructure and remove the social order that at least provided them with peace of mind.

 

[Michael0701]

"And they surely didn't ask the Americans to come in, destroy their infrastructure and remove the social order that at least provided them with peace of mind."



Are you sure about that? Can you be certian that a group of Iraqis did not lobby the US government for help, and I mean help in getting rid of Saddam?

If we were to have left nazi Germany to itself, or the communist USSR to itself, would we still not have gulags and concentration camps? This hits a little close to home for me. But there will always be dissenting groups that plead for help to the US government, and yes, the US is very selective as to whom it helps and picks and choses it's battles carefully.

I guess my point is you can't say that since there was no (active) revolution or civil war in Iraq that they (the Iraqi's) were ok with what they had. And maybe I am way off base, thinking as a westerner about how I would want to see them living their lives. Without fear, in prosperity, practicing their own religions, kinda like the liberties I take for granted here in Pennsylvania. But no human being should have to live the way they did under Saddam. Some day they will have to look back at their lives during and their lives after that mad man. They just need to get through this period, and God willing it will get better from here on out.

 

[mo.mentum]

"And they surely didn't ask the Americans to come in, destroy their infrastructure and remove the social order that at least provided them with peace of mind."



Are you sure about that? Can you be certian that a group of Iraqis did not lobby the US government for help, and I mean help in getting rid of Saddam?

If we were to have left nazi Germany to itself, or the communist USSR to itself, would we still not have gulags and concentration camps? This hits a little close to home for me. But there will always be dissenting groups that plead for help to the US government, and yes, the US is very selective as to whom it helps and picks and choses it's battles carefully.

I guess my point is you can't say that since there was no (active) revolution or civil war in Iraq that they (the Iraqi's) were ok with what they had. And maybe I am way off base, thinking as a westerner about how I would want to see them living their lives. Without fear, in prosperity, practicing their own religions, kinda like the liberties I take for granted here in Pennsylvania. But no human being should have to live the way they did under Saddam. Some day they will have to look back at their lives during and their lives after that mad man. They just need to get through this period, and God willing it will get better from here on out.

Well said! Ameen!

 

[stray bullet]

Yes darling. They're not cavemen. We had democracy in the area way before Europe got out of its Dark Ages.

And Europe had Democracy long before that.

 

[stray bullet]

I don't think so. Occupation is bad. No occupation has ever ended peacefully unless the occupied are willing. Iraqis obviously are not.

Sure it has. Look at the south and the civil war. As for Iraqis, how many are against the occupation, how many are for it? Hard to say where the majority are.

As for the comments earlier, there were a lot of Iraqi exiles supporting the war and a lot of iraqis celebrating when the coalition entered, many are still very happy.

It's just the vocal nutcases that seem to get all the attention.

 

[panterapat]

In reading the Wall Street article, it was explained how much trouble the pollsters went to for accurate results. They used Zogby international pollsters, the consulted with people who polled behind the Iron Curtin during the Cold War, they tried to be sensitive to cultural sensibilities, and addressed topics such as Iraqi fear and Iraqi normal reluclance to give true opinions for fear of reprisals. It seemed that the poll was on the up and up.

It showed a side of Iraq that the media in NOT showing us.

 

[euphoric]

You have to understand it from the point of view of Arabic culture and society. It is 1000 times better to be ruled by a local tyrant than occupied by foreign forces.

I would hope that Iraqis are capable of differentiating between foreign colonial occupiers and a foreign force that is there to free them from a tyrant.

Sure, NO ONE liked Saddam, very true. But they should have been the one removing Saddam themselves. There's a bad history of Western interference in the area. You know, colonialism and imperialism of the 18-19-20th centuries.

The last time they tried it themselves, they got slaughtered. And more than a few wound up going feet first through a plastic shredder. Sometimes you have to get beyond the past and realize that you need help to get where you need to go. The Iraqi people were clearly not able to oust Saddam, but the U.S. military was.

People still remember and they see the latest occupation as an extension of that. Forget Saddam's savaegry, we all agree, even Iraqis, that he was bad. BUT, at least there was order when he was around, Iraq has turned into a chaotic hotbed.

I can't buy this line of reasoning. Are you really asserting that it's better to have "orderly society" under the threat of a murderous tyrant than to suffer a few months or even a year of disorder on the road to self-government? The WWII Italian idea that "yeah Mussolini is a fascist tyrant, but at least the trains run on time?"

And they surely didn't ask the Americans to come in, destroy their infrastructure and remove the social order that at least provided them with peace of mind.

Who in the name of Hades has "peace of mind" when they live in a place where their government routinely drags people from their homes in the dead of night and tortures, rapes and kills them?

-brett

 

[mo.mentum]

And Europe had Democracy long before that.

hehehehe no

Full democracy in Europe came after WW1, then a little after WW2 it was expanded. Before that, it wasn't before the 18th and 19th century.

In the Middle East and the multiple Muslim empires of the 7th -> 19th century, there was a system of public consultation, the Shura. While Europe was in Dark Ages and under Feudal system

Yes you had one supreme leader, the Caliph who was in charge of all Muslims everywhere, despite the presence of several Muslim Empires simultaneously (Ottoman, Mugal, etc etc). His role was to keep religious powers in check (to avoid extremism) and to have final say over political matters. But the majority of decisions were taken with public consultation.

It's not Western Democracy, but it's democratic by definition.

 

[mo.mentum]

Sure it has. Look at the south and the civil war. As for Iraqis, how many are against the occupation, how many are for it? Hard to say where the majority are.

As for the comments earlier, there were a lot of Iraqi exiles supporting the war and a lot of iraqis celebrating when the coalition entered, many are still very happy.

It's just the vocal nutcases that seem to get all the attention.

I get the Arabic satellite news channels from several arab countries. Beware, the reality on the ground is very different than CNN tells you. Honestly.

There is much more discontent and anger towards the foreign forces than one is lead on to know. The only reason all hell hasn't broken loose is because the religious leaders haven't opened the doors for open rebellion and are giving the Americans a chance..but patience is waning.

As for those exiles, every one knows they're puppets. Most of them had never been in Iraq all their lives. We can't take their word as authoritative.

But its true what you say. Usually the nutcases get all the attention because of the sensationalist nature of our media

 

[mo.mentum]

I would hope that Iraqis are capable of differentiating between foreign colonial occupiers and a foreign force that is there to free them from a tyrant.

Come on. You honestly buy that "freedom" propaganda? There are so many strategic and economic advantages in Iraq, that the "freedom" of the poeple is the last thing on war planner's minds. Let's be honest here.

The first building to be secured was the Oil Ministry, yet health/education/social services were devasteted and left to be looted and pillaged? All the oil refineries were secured yet hospital and power stations were left to degenerate? Come on

The last time they tried it themselves, they got slaughtered. And more than a few wound up going feet first through a plastic shredder. Sometimes you have to get beyond the past and realize that you need help to get where you need to go. The Iraqi people were clearly not able to oust Saddam, but the U.S. military was.

If the US truley wanted to liberate Iraq, it would've continued what it had started in '91. But they left their rebel allies within Iraq for dead. That's why they failed.

Who in the name of Hades has "peace of mind" when they live in a place where their government routinely drags people from their homes in the dead of night and tortures, rapes and kills them?

No one, you're right. But the current situation isn't better. And the US isn't about to let the Iraqis elect their own goverment or start providing the same services that were there. Instead, they're letting all the big US companies go in and rebuild and make money wihtout any Iraqi interference, where's the freedom to chose?

Thanks brett for your insights I look forward to your replY!