Interview with an Iraqi...

[abncougar]

NO flame war intended, actually, the mods should lock this right now. Thread is for reading purposes only.

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19973

[ed316]

Great article

[Fargin]

Kaveh: The best way for the U.S. to fight the terrorists in Iraq is to continue exactly what they are doing.


Thank you for not being a racist like those on the American Left whose anti-war stance is based on the insulting assumption that Iraqis can never have, or do not deserve, democracy.

Great read, I thoroughly enjoy a good joke now and then.

[abncougar]

go away
:cantbeli:

[Fargin]

I'm already there.

[Macs.]

"Thank you for not being a racist like those on the American Left whose anti-war stance is based on the insulting assumption that Iraqis can never have, or do not deserve, democracy."

No comment... :-)

[Secret Squirrel]

Great read, I thoroughly enjoy a good joke now and then.

Yea frontpagemag is always good for a laugh once in awhile. But it's pretty much useless unless you're trying to feed your own beast.

[abncougar]

Yea frontpagemag is always good for a laugh once in awhile. But it's pretty much useless unless you're trying to feed your own beast.

ill post articles from democraticunderground.com from now on, so i can feed YOUR beast.

[U-S-S-R]

Interesting. If only Saddam was toppled during the Gulf War noone would have a problem with it. Now the war has a bad taste.

[TuNeRsHaRk]

good read, still amazes me that people still beleived the iraqi people were fine and we never should have gone in rofl

[deccantrap]

I feel really upset to read what all this guy had to go through.

But I have no respect for anyone who lives in a foreign country and encourages his new country to occupy his old country, even if its in a hell of a mess. Even if some street-bum became the president of the US and started killing people, I would never ever allow a foreign army to come dispose him and install a government which is their puppet.

I wonder if the guy interviewed intends to go back to Iraq and help reconstruct it once conditions are better.

[deccantrap]

good read, still amazes me that people still beleived the iraqi people were fine and we never should have gone in rofl
That the Iraqi people were not fine was never a prime reason to go to Iraq. WMD was the prime reason. And oil. And control. With the last two in mind, it certainly was great that we went in.

[ed316]

I feel really upset to read what all this guy had to go through.

But I have no respect for anyone who lives in a foreign country and encourages his new country to occupy his old country, even if its in a hell of a mess. Even if some street-bum became the president of the US and started killing people, I would never ever allow a foreign army to come dispose him and install a government which is their puppet.

I wonder if the guy interviewed intends to go back to Iraq and help reconstruct it once conditions are better.


So it's better for despots to do what they like to their own civilians, right?

[Mailman]

Actually it was Iraqs continued contravention and obstruction of various UN resolutions that lead to the invasion. As for oil...well thats just a convenient excuse for the goons our there who live in laalaa land! :D

Mailman

[ed316]

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

that's right check it out for yourself.

[ArmedPacifist]

So it's better for despots to do what they like to their own civilians, right?

Why hasn't the US made a single breakthrough with Africa then?

Last I counted there are almost ten times as many bloodthirsty despots in that country as there are in the middle east.

[ed316]

Because those countries despots are a porduct of European Colonialism, and whatever the US does it's always bad no matter the intentions.

[U-S-S-R]

It's not the outcome of the Iraq war that desturbs people, it's the motives.

[ed316]

Oil, national security, or Democrtizing a Fvuck region people are going to be cynical.

[abncougar]

That the Iraqi people were not fine was never a prime reason to go to Iraq. WMD was the prime reason. And oil. And control. With the last two in mind, it certainly was great that we went in.

the resolution to go to war drafted by congress specifically states that human rights was also a reason for war. the left cant help but to desperatley grasp at the WMD argument, even though their god (clinton) even said Iraq was a threat because of their WMD

[deccantrap]

So it's better for despots to do what they like to their own civilians, right?

To say that the US invaded iraq just to free its people of the despot with no self-interest of its own is to say that i eat and breath not because i want to, but because the country needs its citizens to be healthy.

A despot who ousted a democratically elected government rules Pakistan, and Pakistan has been US's ally in the war. China is ruled by non-democratic leaders (if not despots) who inflict tortures and suppression of its citizens, and US is on excellent trade terms with that country.

After we helped oust democratically-elected prime minister Mosaddeq of Iran in 1953 (because he wanted to nationalize oil companies, replacing him with the Shah who turned out to be a cruel despot), we lost our moral authority to squeal about what is good and what is bad for other nations.

In any case, in answer to your question: Think of what YOU would think if the some rogue person came to power in the US. Most American's who feel that we are welcome in other countries ruled by cruel leaders feel that way because we have never, in recent history, had foreign boots treading our soil and foreign soldiers ruling the roost on our streets while we are supposed to stop at each check point or risk being shot. As an American, I wouldnt allow any muddafukka to bring down the White House, no matter what, and as an Iraqi I would feel the same.

[deccantrap]

the resolution to go to war drafted by congress specifically states that human rights was also a reason for war. the left cant help but to desperatley grasp at the WMD argument, even though their god (clinton) even said Iraq was a threat because of their WMD

Human rights? Refer to above argument on China, Pakistan.

[abncougar]

"Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait"

--Congress

[deccantrap]

"Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait"

--Congress
I thought the prime reason for the war was WMD. Maybe left-wing propoganda. I need to go back and do my homework :D .

[abncougar]

In any case, in answer to your question: Think of what YOU would think if the some rogue person came to power in the US. Most American's who feel that we are welcome in other countries ruled by cruel leaders feel that way because we have never, in recent history, had foreign boots treading our soil and foreign soldiers ruling the roost on our streets while we are supposed to stop at each check point or risk being shot. As an American, I wouldnt allow any muddafukka to bring down the White House, no matter what, and as an Iraqi I would feel the same.

this statement 200% contradicts what the guy in the article is saying. I don't know how i would feel if some crazy mofo were in the white house. but if it were as bad as saddam and our people didnt have the capabilities to rise against, i would appreciate being liberated.

[ed316]

To say that the US invaded iraq just to free its people of the despot with no self-interest of its own is to say that i eat and breath not because i want to, but because the country needs its citizens to be healthy.

A despot who ousted a democratically elected government rules Pakistan, and Pakistan has been US's ally in the war. China is ruled by non-democratic leaders (if not despots) who inflict tortures and suppression of its citizens, and US is on excellent trade terms with that country.

After we helped oust democratically-elected prime minister Mosaddeq of Iran in 1953 (because he wanted to nationalize oil companies, replacing him with the Shah who turned out to be a cruel despot), we lost our moral authority to squeal about what is good and what is bad for other nations.

In any case, in answer to your question: Think of what YOU would think if the some rogue person came to power in the US. Most American's who feel that we are welcome in other countries ruled by cruel leaders feel that way because we have never, in recent history, had foreign boots treading our soil and foreign soldiers ruling the roost on our streets while we are supposed to stop at each check point or risk being shot. As an American, I wouldnt allow any muddafukka to bring down the White House, no matter what, and as an Iraqi I would feel the same.

So by that it's better to keep the status quo and say F-it to people living in dictatorships. IMO freeing the Iraqi people and National Security was a better sell to the American people than Oil intrest.

[LibertyUnites]

i love how cheap gas is in America since we smuggled all the oil out of iraq

[abncougar]

I thought the prime reason for the war was WMD. Maybe left-wing propoganda. I need to go back and do my homework :D .


naw, 70% of the resolution talks about WMD, but there were OTHER reasons. and IMHO, we should liberate every country.......and about China...Human Rights Watch is to busy calling American GTMO death camps and the ACLU is to busy getting rid of christmas. (and yes, the ACLU is trying to go international)

[abncougar]

i love how cheap gas is in America since we smuggled all the oil out of iraq

ditto (this message was too short so i had to write more)

[ed316]

ACLU and Human Rights Watch loved by all terrorist for anti-US Holier than thou mentality, what a joke these two groups are.

[abncougar]

ACLU and Human Rights Watch loved by all terrorist for anti-US Holier than thou mentality, what a joke these two groups are.


hey dude, check out www.stoptheaclu.com great blog. i love these guys. i already signed the petition to stop the aclu.

[ed316]

hey dude, check out www.stoptheaclu.com (http://www.stoptheaclu.com) great blog. i love these guys. i already signed the petition to stop the aclu.

........................Thanx:)

[deccantrap]

So by that it's better to keep the status quo and say F-it to people living in dictatorships.

Yes. You say F-it to them.

Especially when the dictatorship in question is US-supported. Saddam got tons of arms and millions of dollars from the US, because we wanted him to beat the **** out of Iranians. Same with Osama, he too got lots of goodies from the US because we wanted him and his buddies to beat the **** out of Russians.

[deccantrap]

i love how cheap gas is in America since we smuggled all the oil out of iraq

If the Iraq liberation had really gone as smoothly as we thought, gas would certainly have been a lot cheaper! How I wish! :)

[ed316]

Yes. You say F-it to them.

Especially when the dictatorship in question is US-supported. Saddam got tons of arms and millions of dollars from the US, because we wanted him to beat the **** out of Iranians. Same with Osama, he too got lots of goodies from the US because we wanted him and his buddies to beat the **** out of Russians.


So we should let the past be repeated by sitting on the sideline?

[deccantrap]

So we should let the past be repeated by sitting on the sideline?
The "past" (i assume you mention to 9/11) happened precisely because we didnt mind our own business. It is we who flushed the fledgling islamic movement in the middle east with money and weapons in the 80s.

[ed316]

The "past" (i assume you mention to 9/11) happened precisely because we didnt mind our own business. It is we who flushed the fledgling islamic movement in the middle east with money and weapons in the 80s.

No, go further back. This is beyond 9/11

[ed316]

So what suppose we do with tyranny in yhe world?

[Omaha]

Yes. You say F-it to them.

Especially when the dictatorship in question is US-supported. Saddam got tons of arms and millions of dollars from the US, because we wanted him to beat the **** out of Iranians. Same with Osama, he too got lots of goodies from the US because we wanted him and his buddies to beat the **** out of Russians.


Lesser of two evils sharp guy. The Iranians were ALWAYS a larger threat then anything Iraq could do. Doesn't mean we liked him, we just used him as a tool. Same with Afghanistan and the USSR. Just because we help you fight one of our enemy's, doesn't make you a friend of ours. Just means you are in the right place at the right time to get a lot of free stuff.

[ed316]

GEOPOLITICS pure and simple.

[abncougar]

Yes. You say F-it to them.

Especially when the dictatorship in question is US-supported. Saddam got tons of arms and millions of dollars from the US, because we wanted him to beat the **** out of Iranians. Same with Osama, he too got lots of goodies from the US because we wanted him and his buddies to beat the **** out of Russians.

correction, check your facts (and ill check mine) but as far as i know we gave iraq intelligence, not arms.

We didnt give Osama ****. Osama wasn't a leader during the afghan-soviet war. he was a fighter. we gave weapons and training to the Afghan freedom fighters. Osama is no leader, he just has lots of money.

[deccantrap]

we gave weapons and training to the Afghan freedom fighters. Osama is no leader, he just has lots of money.
I like this. I wish I had such a subjective point of view. The Afghan resistance is a fight for freedom, the Iraqi resistance is insurgency.

American support to Afghan resistance is "help", Syria's support to Iraqi resistance is "abetting insurgency".

In any case, who said they need our help? There are thousands, nay, millions or people in the world who are suffering from injustice, inequality or just plain poverty. Noone said the US was responsible to free everyone of their misery.

Defence budgets in Nordic countries are comparable to their aid budgets. Our aid budgets are nowhere compared to our defence (offence?) budgets. Who do you think cares more about the welfare of the world?

[abncougar]

I like this. I wish I had such a subjective point of view. The Afghan resistance is a fight for freedom, the Iraqi resistance is insurgency.

American support to Afghan resistance is "help", Syria's support to Iraqi resistance is "abetting insurgency".

In any case, who said they need our help? There are thousands, nay, millions or people in the world who are suffering from injustice, inequality or just plain poverty. Noone said the US was responsible to free everyone of their misery.

Defence budgets in Nordic countries are comparable to their aid budgets. Our aid budgets are nowhere compared to our defence (offence?) budgets. Who do you think cares more about the welfare of the world?

Look at the motives of the Soviets compared to that of the US. therefore, that point is moot.

no one said they needed our help. IMHO, we should give it, lord knows they need it, why NOT help?? we give billions in aid annually, if it werent for the corrupt governments we give it to, we might see results.

[Nikitaras]

Just out of curiosity, given the current situation in Iraq and the admission of coalition round ups while conducting counter insurgency operations, does anyone else find this statement a bit interesting?

Saddam's Fedayheen would randomly storm peoples’ homes and find males between the ages of 16-35 and label them as rebels. Several family members disappeared but no one would say anything

[deccantrap]

Look at the motives of the Soviets compared to that of the US. therefore, that point is moot.

no one said they needed our help. IMHO, we should give it, lord knows they need it, why NOT help?? we give billions in aid annually, if it werent for the corrupt governments we give it to, we might see results.

Come on! Are you telling me that our motives are any nobler? In any case, I have absolutely no idea why the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Maybe you can enlighten me.

"we give billions in aid annually". Really, thats a totally offhand statement. It is a well documented fact (look up any website on economic indicators, for instance, economist.com) that america donates peanuts in form of aid.

Btw, what does IMHO mean? ;)

[deccantrap]

does anyone else find this statement a bit interesting?

I do! There is a very strong similarity and also a very significant difference: being rounded up and roughed up by a countryman is not the same as by a foreign soldier.

I have time and again written on this forum that I had rather live under a bad leader than have foreign soldiers tread American soil. This would hold true if I was a true-blooded Iraqi or from any other country.

[abncougar]

Im My Humble Opinion


and it is easy for you to say that you would rather live under an oppressive ruler when you have never experienced the horrors that some of these Iraqis have experienced.

[deccantrap]

Im My Humble Opinion


and it is easy for you to say that you would rather live under an oppressive ruler when you have never experienced the horrors that some of these Iraqis have experienced.
In my humble opinion, I can say with my eyes closed that you are from America or some other such country which has never had a war fought on its own soil, and do not know the national shame that goes with being under a foreign boot, a shame much intense and larger in magnitude than the horrors that "some of these" Iraqis have experienced.

And, abncougar, millions of people experience the same or worse horrors in hundreds of other places in the world. Why the **** should MY tax money go to relieve them of their pains? In any case, as history of our intervention in the middle east shows, our actions only help in shifting the misery from one place to another.

Please, if we are really so big-hearted and shed tears over other people's misery, let us go help people in Africa who have no food to eat and people in Pakistan who have no houses to live in (after the earthquake) or people in the Indian Ocean rim, where thousands of fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters were swept out in one fell swoop of nature (the tsunami). Let us not get into an intervention which only gets us into more trouble (Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel).

Almost every country, community and religious association in the Middle East is well fed and well armed, and able to take care of themselves. One might be better fed and better armed than the other, but there are millions in the world much worse off than these.

you should read riverbend.blogspot.com to see what horrors the iraqi people were having before the invasion

[Lefty]

Why did we fight the war in Iraq? Because someone felt it would benefit the US....never has a war been fought that one side has not felt that it would benefit them to fight it. That's just the way it is. It may have been anything, but face it, if it didn't benefit the country, why would anyone care? If our sympathy for the plight of our fellow was the only thing that detirmined US decisions, we would be all over Africa, but we arn't. Why? Because Africa has little that could benefit us. Iraq has oil, business oppurtunities, a semi-decent infrastructure; plenty to make the US happy. Attacking for humanitarian reasons is simply an added "benefit" for the Iraqis and a nice way of wrapping the invasion package for the US citizen.

[sickofpretenders]

I do! There is a very strong similarity and also a very significant difference: being rounded up and roughed up by a countryman is not the same as by a foreign soldier.

Lets not forget that other little difference: The taken ones are subjected to loud music for a while before being released or locked away. Compared with being brutally tortured, killed and never seen again.





I have time and again written on this forum that I had rather live under a bad leader than have foreign soldiers tread American soil. This would hold true if I was a true-blooded Iraqi or from any other country


Well its easy for you to say, as you have never lived under a dictator. You may feel differently if your whole family had been killed in the name of a guy you never voted for. The guy in the article certainly does not feel the same way, and there are many iraqis who have already returned home since the war was declared over. The kuwatis were pretty happy for America move in and organise a demorcracy also.
From what I have seen the liberal media is grossly overplaying the similarities between life now and under saddam. I would be very surprised if any other than the baath party would vote to have him back.

Abncougar: The US gave a lot more than intel. They gave technology and aid. Aid money was still being given less than a year prior to saddam invading Kuwait.

Also Deccantrap, the argument that if America was concearned about human rights they would invade china is pretty flimsy. A massive brutal war against china would run for years and years, killing millions and with a pretty good chance of losing. It would completely bleed the economy and more than likely go nuclear.
The old oil one is laughable also: If it was just about oil why was the priority in country not been to secure all oil assets and get the oil flowing? why is this being handed to the local and the emphasis on establishing infrastructure and a democratic government?

[Fargin]

This was never meant to be a mature debate...

In my oppinion you're already there, when you water down the Geneva Convention anything goes. When you signal to your armed forces 'the rules don't apply' the message should be loud and clear.

Vice President **** Cheney even cuts it out for the morons:

The probition of cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment "shall not apply with respect to clandestine counterterrorism operations conducted abroad, with respect to terrorists who are not citizens of the United States, that are carried out by an element of the United States government other than the Department of Defense. . . if the president determines that such operations are vital to the protection of the United States or its citizens from terrorist attack."

Please continue the smoking and fcukin' all undefended and unprosecuted suspects. You're winning hearts and minds, freeing Iraq and repeating Vietnam.