Comments on: Saddam comparisons

By: sab

sab — Sat, 15 Jan 2005 20:01:49 +0000

its all as well to argue over whether saddam was the lesser evil for the iraqi people, or the US. But arent we forgetting that Bush’s reason for going into war was not for ‘’saving the iraqi people from the deviant tyrant’’ but rather to dissuade the US from the ‘’looming threat of WMDs” from which focus has been shifted conveniently? nothing can justify that attack, that massive killing and that strategy on those grounds.

By: abb1

abb1 — Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:35:57 +0000

What is a ‘democratic government’? In the US, for example, we have a president who is an object of intense hatred of about one third of the population. And before that we had another president who was also hated by about a third of the population. A third of the US population is 4 times the population of Iraq. The current US president – who is considered illegitimate usurper by more US citizens than total number of people in Iraq – invades and occupies foreign countries, disappears people, tortures prisoners, breaks social contracts and international treaties. He has four more years of free reign – no matter what the citizens want. After the four years the citizens will have a choice again between two very similar persons, two very similar ideologies, two members of the same elite. Name a government that is ‘democratic’, James, and explain to me why you like it so much. But try to cut down on rhetoric, please. Thanks.

By: james

james — Thu, 13 Jan 2005 19:09:05 +0000

When responding to abb1 please keep in mind that his postings on multiple subjects suggest a belief that a democratic government is, in itself, a bad outcome.

By: abb1

abb1 — Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:13:01 +0000

The Shia community raised up against the occupation. Then their leaders got bribed. They are still fighting, but spontaneously, lacking organization, leadership. What’s so complicated? These things happen in every colonial war.

By: mw

mw — Thu, 13 Jan 2005 13:47:54 +0000

“The idea that Shia leaders find it in their self-interest to hold elections that their preferred candidates stand to win is implausible to you?” Exactly. These leaders expect to rule the country – that’s the bribe. Elections have little to do with it – a bunch of people who have a degree of control over the Shia population made a deal with the Bushies, that’s all. Unbelievable. By your definition every politician everywhere, every political party everywhere has been ‘bribed’ by the prospect of winning an election and gaining power. The Shia community decides to seek power through the democratic process rather than force of arms—and that constitutes a form of corruption by your reckoning?!?

By: abb1

abb1 — Thu, 13 Jan 2005 12:43:12 +0000

Mike, I thought I already explained it: Shia leaders got bribed, Al Sadr is one of them. Garden variety ‘divide and rule’ approach.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:00:28 +0000

“But from the government of Iraq’s own figures last summer, the greater part of civilian casualties are due to the American military.” Roger, do you have any reference for this? I wasn’t aware the Iraqi government was distinguishing between civilian deaths caused by the coalition and those by insurgents, homicide, etc. By the way, the Lancet study data had the number of violent deaths not directly attributed to the coalition (criminal homicides, insurgent murders etc) outnumbering those caused by the coalition by a factor of 4 to 3, with regard to their 100,000 estimate of excess deaths which excluded the Falluja cluster. Concerning your Mosul claim, this seems a far fetched supposition. The differences between Falluja and Mosul are immense. While Falluja was completely under insurgent control, with no presence within the town by coalition or Iraqi security forces, Mosul was relatively peaceful up until recently. The insurgents launched a massive strike against the police in Mosul when the Americans were fully engaged in retaking Falluja, then melted away when the Americans showed up in force again in Mosul. Mosul will not become another Falluja. Abb 1: You were just joking when you said this right? ” Of course they suck at it. You can see on TV how they shoot their AK47s – shooting like that you wouldn’t hit a cow 10 meters away. They are Iraqi rednecks, hillbillies. Nothing’s wrong with that, but clearly they can’t fight. If they could, why would they live under hostile government for 30 years – and they were armed all that time too.” Even if we take your comment at face value, and the Shia are, to put it crudely, simply shitty insurgents, how do you explain the much lower number of recorded attacks on coalition forces in the non-Sunni areas of Iraq? The Iraqi government and the coalition have repeatedly claimed that 14 of the 18 provinces in Iraq (all non-Sunni) are experiencing little violence. I’ve seen little evidence to contradict this. The Shia and the Kurds are not buying into the insurgency, and Moqtada Al Sadr does not enjoy widespread support among the Shia, as you claim. He has been completely marginalized by Sistani and the other senior clerics. We’ve heard virtually nothing from or about him since his uprising was absolutely crushed by the Americans.

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 23:10:04 +0000

But many were in tents, and I am sure it was neither pleasant or comfortable. What do you mean “was”? Most of them still are. Of course, the condition of Fallujah (and Fallujans) after the battle is highly politicized and reliable information is hard to come by, but it seems clear the destruction was nothing close to Grozny or the european cities after WWII. If the information is so hard to come by, why does this “seem clear” to you?

By: mw

mw — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:48:45 +0000

That is the single most hilarious take on the war crime in Fallujah I’ve read. Right, terrorists. People who bomb hospitals (America’s first target). So America bombed all the hospitals? Flattened them? Killed everybody inside? Even though they were full of patients and medical staff? Or maybe not: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/07/iraq.main/ (Americans targetted the most famous restaurant in Fallujah because they suspected insurgents sometimes ate there). At night when it was not open: http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/299E942A-9A0A-4E1F-B046-BF22E45A24FD.htm Terrorists herd people out of cities without providing food, shelter, electricity or medicine (see under U.S.A.) Nobody ‘herded’ anybody—civilians left Falluja over the course of several weeks leading up to the battle. Most of whom went to stay with in other cities (many with relatives). But many were in tents, and I am sure it was neither pleasant or comfortable. More should have been done to set up camps beforehand. But even so, I do not believe lives were threatened by hunger, thirst, disease, or exposure to the elements: “The UNHCR and the International Organization for Migration have been distributing emergency supplies since December such as blankets and cooking stoves to about 36,000 displaced Fallujah residents, Pagonis said.” 36,000 is not a small number, but it is a minority of Fallujans. Now, according to the NY Times, Americans admit that putting up the nice little buildings again… oh, it might take a year or two. Sorry if you are in your tent, or if your total wealth was destroyed. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000100&sid=aEdFjr1Sp98s&refer=germany “Fallujah’s general hospital is operating” —miracle of reconstruction, that, given that it was bombed into rubble. “Water is available only a few hours each day and electricity supply is sporadic” Not good—but not exactly Grozny-style total devastation. What portion of structures have been flattened here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/fallujah_poststrike_03.htm So oh brother — the kind of thinking that diminishes the destruction of a city because it was “taken over” by terrorists was last exemplified by the Soviet Union, in 1980, in Herat. Glad you’ve disvovered the S.U. defense. Funny, at the time, we called that a war crime. “Many buildings that insurgents turned into strongpoints are now just piles of shattered concrete blocks and bricks. Nearby structures, separated by only a low wall and a few feet of grass, stand untouched. The office of interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi said Monday that only about 200 buildings out of 17,000 in Fallujah had sustained major damage.” http://www.detnews.com/2004/nation/0411/16/A04-5930.htm Is Allawi underestimating the damage? Almost certainly. But even if he’s underestimating by an entire order of magnitude (say 2000 instead of 200), that’s still a small fraction of the total. Of course, the condition of Fallujah (and Fallujans) after the battle is highly politicized and reliable information is hard to come by, but it seems clear the destruction was nothing close to Grozny or the european cities after WWII. That’s just not how the US military fights—the city was full of US armed troops during the battle. Indiscriminate ‘bombing into rubble’ of the entire city was not an option.

By: abb1

abb1 — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:40:42 +0000

Oh, and this: If there is a Shia in the south comparable to the one in the north, then one has to conclude those Shia are spectacularly bad at it. What? They can’t figure out how to press the button when the British vehicles drive by? Of course they suck at it. You can see on TV how they shoot their AK47s – shooting like that you wouldn’t hit a cow 10 meters away. They are Iraqi rednecks, hillbillies. Nothing’s wrong with that, but clearly they can’t fight. If they could, why would they live under hostile government for 30 years – and they were armed all that time too.

By: abb1

abb1 — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:21:27 +0000

The idea that Shia leaders find it in their self-interest to hold elections that their preferred candidates stand to win is implausible to you? Exactly. These leaders expect to rule the country – that’s the bribe. Elections have little to do with it – a bunch of people who have a degree of control over the Shia population made a deal with the Bushies, that’s all.

By: mw

mw — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 22:02:24 +0000

This is your precious Shia. It’s exactly the same, only their leaders have been bribed into trying to keep a lid on it. Doesn’t work well, though, does it? If there is a Shia in the south comparable to the one in the north, then one has to conclude those Shia are spectacularly bad at it. What? They can’t figure out how to press the button when the British vehicles drive by? Sistani’s been bribed has he? The idea that Shia leaders find it in their self-interest to hold elections that their preferred candidates stand to win is implausible to you?

By: abb1

abb1 — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:04:31 +0000

It’s not a crime if helps bring us one step closer to the Bright Communist Future, Worker’s Paradise… er…, sorry, the Bright Capitalist Future, Worker’s Paradise.

By: Uncle Kvetch

Uncle Kvetch — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:17:05 +0000

So oh brother — the kind of thinking that diminishes the destruction of a city because it was “taken over” by terrorists was last exemplified by the Soviet Union, in 1980, in Herat. I beg to differ, Roger. Our Dear Leader’s soulmate, Vladimir Putin, has used much the same rationale much more recently to justify leveling Grozny.

By: roger

roger — Wed, 12 Jan 2005 19:50:49 +0000

That is the single most hilarious take on the war crime in Fallujah I’ve read. Right, terrorists. People who bomb hospitals (America’s first target). People whoset off random explosives in restuarants (Americans targetted the most famous restaurant in Fallujah because they suspected insurgents sometimes ate there). Terrorists herd people out of cities without providing food, shelter, electricity or medicine (see under U.S.A.) Now, according to the NY Times, Americans admit that putting up the nice little buildings again… oh, it might take a year or two. Sorry if you are in your tent, or if your total wealth was destroyed. So oh brother—the kind of thinking that diminishes the destruction of a city because it was “taken over” by terrorists was last exemplified by the Soviet Union, in 1980, in Herat. Glad you’ve disvovered the S.U. defense. Funny, at the time, we called that a war crime.