Iraqi soccer players no fan of Bush

[nfotiu]

Interesting article...
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/olym...iraq/index.html

[Bingo]

There are so many layers to the Iraqi war discussion ... but after reading two or three articles about how Iraqi soccer players specifically have been treated in the past it really comes across as ungrateful to me for them to backlash the United States.

I was fine up to the "don't use us in your ads" thing but if anyone has a reason to thank their lucky stars that the Hussein regime was removed it should be these guys.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by nfotiu@Aug 19 2004, 05:29 PM
Interesting article...
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2004/olym...iraq/index.html

Here's another Sports Illustrated article, talking about Uday Hussein's policies and practices as head of Iraq's Olympic committee.

Make sure to have your barf bag ready as you're reading it.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online.../son_of_saddam/

Cowperson

[nfotiu]

Originally posted by Bingo@Aug 19 2004, 05:49 PM
There are so many layers to the Iraqi war discussion ... but after reading two or three articles about how Iraqi soccer players specifically have been treated in the past it really comes across as ungrateful to me for them to backlash the United States.

I was fine up to the "don't use us in your ads" thing but if anyone has a reason to thank their lucky stars that the Hussein regime was removed it should be these guys.

Is it not possible that Iraqi's are realizing the cure is worse than the disease? Why should they be grateful to Bush for leading an army that killed what must be at least one hundred thousand of his compatriots? They did not ask for this war, they did not want this war, and right now the people being interviewed feel they are worse off because of it. Maybe happened to their soccer team under Saddam pales to what all of his countrymen are facing now. How can you pretend that you know what is best for them? America invaded their country, why should they appreciate that?

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by nfotiu+Aug 19 2004, 06:35 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (nfotiu @ Aug 19 2004, 06:35 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bingo@Aug 19 2004, 05:49 PM
There are so many layers to the Iraqi war discussion ... but after reading two or three articles about how Iraqi soccer players specifically have been treated in the past it really comes across as ungrateful to me for them to backlash the United States.

I was fine up to the "don't use us in your ads" thing but if anyone has a reason to thank their lucky stars that the Hussein regime was removed it should be these guys.

Is it not possible that Iraqi's are realizing the cure is worse than the disease? [/b][/quote]
I guess you didn't read that story I just posted.

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

I read both articles. In their first one they explain that their country is wrecked and you can't walk on the streets. That would make me mad as well.

But... in all honesty I don't really get it either. You'd think they'd be quite happy to be rid of Saddam. I guess they are, but it doesn't seem to translate into happiness and co-operation with the United States. I don't know, just blabbing here. Perhaps after 30 years under that bas**rd, 3 major wars, all the awful things that have happened, everybody is understandably p*ssed and they just want a country for themselves and they don't see the Americans leaving anytime soon. Kinda hard to explain to someone "if everything calms down we can get this new, good country started and then we will leave" (which I assume is the plan) while foreign troops roam the dangerous streets.

Of course with all the "they'll greet us with flowers and kisses" business before the war, we kinda got conditioned to expect everything to go nice and smooth.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by nfotiu@Aug 19 2004, 12:35 PM
Is it not possible that Iraqi's are realizing the cure is worse than the disease? Why should they be grateful to Bush for leading an army that killed what must be at least one hundred thousand of his compatriots? They did not ask for this war, they did not want this war, and right now the people being interviewed feel they are worse off because of it. Maybe happened to their soccer team under Saddam pales to what all of his countrymen are facing now. How can you pretend that you know what is best for them? America invaded their country, why should they appreciate that?

As Cow pointed out ... look at the difference.

I can understand a villager that has had their family wiped out by a US bomb that missed their mark, but the soccer team has specifically benefited from the war given they've gone from potentially murdered or tortured for losing to competing like everyone else.

They have every right to ask not be used in a political campaign, but it comes across as preprogramed hatred to me, and not a rational way to perceive the effects on the Hussein removal on their own lives.

[Cowperson]

We can argue all day - and have - about why the USA went there in the first place but the fact of the matter is that no one would be getting killed right now, there would be half as many USA troops there as there are now and billions would be pouring in for jobs if the local crazies weren't going around shooting the place up.

That's where the ingrate factor kicks in.

And it is ironic that soccer players are making the complaints given the stories in the Sports Illustrated article.

Cowperson

[nfotiu]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Aug 19 2004, 06:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Aug 19 2004, 06:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Is it not possible that Iraqi's are realizing the cure is worse than the disease?

I guess you didn't read that story I just posted.

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
How arrogant is it to tell someone that they should be appreciative for what we have forcibly done to you?

If all that was written in the article happened to them, then the fact that they think they are worse off living in Iraq in the state it was left for them. That kind of commentary must be tough to take for people who justify the war and all its casualties by thinking that it was done for their own good.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by nfotiu@Aug 19 2004, 01:02 PM
How arrogant is it to tell someone that they should be appreciative for what we have forcibly done to you?

If all that was written in the article happened to them, then the fact that they think they are worse off living in Iraq in the state it was left for them. That kind of commentary must be tough to take for people who justify the war and all its casualties by thinking that it was done for their own good.

I don't think it would make me blink.

Sometimes people just don't get it, and won't agree with something that many find logical because they've been conditioned to think otherwise.

This team was terrorized and tortured ... that's pretty much a fact. Now they are living in a posh olympic village in Greece competing for their country on the national stage. If they don't see that as an uptick in life that doesn't make their view right in anyway, it's just a very vivid portrait on just how ingrained an anti-West bias has become in their culture.

My wife's friend is engaged to a nice Romanian fellow. He opposes the Iraq war and we had a civil conversation about it. I asked "isn't it better to get rid of a dictator that is terrorizing and murdering you're own people, regardless of how he's removed" He said that he and his family would rather face a lifetime under the will of Ceaucescu then be liberated by Americans.

It's how he was brought up.

[nfotiu]

Originally posted by Bingo+Aug 19 2004, 07:13 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bingo @ Aug 19 2004, 07:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-nfotiu@Aug 19 2004, 01:02 PM
How arrogant is it to tell someone that they should be appreciative for what we have forcibly done to you?

If all that was written in the article happened to them, then the fact that they think they are worse off living in Iraq in the state it was left for them. That kind of commentary must be tough to take for people who justify the war and all its casualties by thinking that it was done for their own good.

I don't think it would make me blink.

Sometimes people just don't get it, and won't agree with something that many find logical because they've been conditioned to think otherwise.

This team was terrorized and tortured ... that's pretty much a fact. Now they are living in a posh olympic village in Greece competing for their country on the national stage. If they don't see that as an uptick in life that doesn't make their view right in anyway, it's just a very vivid portrait on just how ingrained an anti-West bias has become in their culture.

My wife's friend is engaged to a nice Romanian fellow. He opposes the Iraq war and we had a civil conversation about it. I asked "isn't it better to get rid of a dictator that is terrorizing and murdering you're own people, regardless of how he's removed" He said that he and his family would rather face a lifetime under the will of Ceaucescu then be liberated by Americans.

It's how he was brought up. [/b][/quote]
It could just be that the fact he can play on a soccer team without fear pales in comparison to what he, his family and his friends have to live with day to day. Is it really fair for you to tell them they should be happy with how things are just because he gets to enjoy life for a few weeks. He shared some specific and personal reasons on why he is against what America did. Who's opinion is based on what they are conditioned to think? Someone who lives it every day, or someone watching from far away who thinks they know their life is better? If the people don't see that they are better off, are they really better off? The war America started with his country is probably responsible for more Iraqi deaths than Saddam was in his entire reign of power. Yet you want to tell the soccer player that his country is absolutely better off now? It is this kind of thinking, and this kind of arrogance that gets the US into trouble internationally all the time.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by nfotiu@Aug 19 2004, 07:37 PM
[ The war America started with his country is probably responsible for more Iraqi deaths than Saddam was in his entire reign of power.

That's some kind of demented joke on your part isn't it?

Cowperson

[Bingo]

Originally posted by nfotiu@Aug 19 2004, 01:37 PM
It could just be that the fact he can play on a soccer team without fear pales in comparison to what he, his family and his friends have to live with day to day. Is it really fair for you to tell them they should be happy with how things are just because he gets to enjoy life for a few weeks. He shared some specific and personal reasons on why he is against what America did. Who's opinion is based on what they are conditioned to think? Someone who lives it every day, or someone watching from far away who thinks they know their life is better? If the people don't see that they are better off, are they really better off? The war America started with his country is probably responsible for more Iraqi deaths than Saddam was in his entire reign of power. Yet you want to tell the soccer player that his country is absolutely better off now? It is this kind of thinking, and this kind of arrogance that gets the US into trouble internationally all the time.

Don't make me out to be a callous person ... not the case at all.

I just happen to think life under a dictator that stole a country's wealth and gases it's own citizens isn't what I would call a picture perfect existence. But that doesn't mean war isn't hell. Of course it sucks.

I'm sure many citizens of that country want the whole mess to go away, but it's hard to argue that when the situation is sorted out that they will be well ahead of where they would have been had the US just let Hussein continue on in power.

It's like asking a guy in the middle of a root canal if he thinks coming to the dentist was a good idea. Chances are he'd roll his eyes. But in a week when his mouth feels normal he's a long way ahead of where his mouth would have been without Mr. Drill.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

This is another argument that people just aren't likely to get. "You'd think they'd be quite happy to be rid of Saddam"? Why? Because America said he was bad? Take away the backroom polotics and Hussein was looked upon highly in the Arab world for the most part. To me this train of thought is similar to that which Americans use in Cuba. They can't wait for the "hated" Castro to die, so Cuba can be liberated. Liberated in whose eyes? Did anyone bother to ask Cubans if they feel that they need liberating? It seems to me that if Cubans were not happy with Castro (a leader the people love) they would have done something about it by now. Its not like the Americans have not been trying to undeed the "dictator" for almost half a century. Same thing goes in Iraq. The Americans appealed to the people to unseat Saddam, but they did nothing. Maybe the average joe on the street didn't want change? Maybe they were used to living under what westerners considered a tyrant? Just because the US says the people should be liberated does not make it right.

Personally I'm starting to see the Arab side of the story. I don't really agree with the way they live, but they do have that right. This is something lost on a lot of westerners. They have a certain belief structure that we don't understand because if clashes with the one that we were raised on and learned to believe in. They have been raised to believe their social structure and lifestyle is right, so who are we to say they are wrong and force our ways on them. We aren't and shouldn't. Just because you wish to trade with someone does not mean you should enforce your culture and ways on them. You should certainly not go in and conquer their country because you think their leader is a tyrant. But that is the way of some nations. I think that the US is wrong for their foreign policy and the people of Iraq have every right to feel the way they do. How would Canadians feel if France invaded Canada because they felt Martin was a tyrant? Bitter? Just a bit IMO.

[nfotiu]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Aug 19 2004, 07:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Aug 19 2004, 07:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-nfotiu@Aug 19 2004, 07:37 PM
[ The war America started with his country is probably responsible for more Iraqi deaths than Saddam was in his entire reign of power.

That's some kind of demented joke on your part isn't it?

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
Prove it wrong? The Iraqi death toll(civilian and millitary) is probably over 100,000. Saddam's death toll during his 25 years is probably +/-50% of that number. Both numbers are incredibly sketchy, provide some evidence that makes that statement as ludicrous as you are suggesting it is.

The fact is, neither Bush nor Saddam, were too concerned about the lives of Iraqis.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by nfotiu+Aug 19 2004, 07:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (nfotiu @ Aug 19 2004, 07:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

That's some kind of demented joke on your part isn't it?

Cowperson

Prove it wrong? The Iraqi death toll(civilian and millitary) is probably over 100,000. Saddam's death toll during his 25 years is probably +/-50% of that number. Both numbers are incredibly sketchy, provide some evidence that makes that statement as ludicrous as you are suggesting it is.

The fact is, neither Bush nor Saddam, were too concerned about the lives of Iraqis. [/b][/quote]
No problem.

Using a left wing propoganda organ, iraqbodycount.net, you come up with a maximum of 13,603 as of this week.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Meanwhile, from a New York Times article:

The chemical attacks on Halabja and Goktapa and perhaps two hundred other villages and towns were only a small part of the cataclysm that Saddam's cousin, the man known as Ali Chemical, arranged for the Kurds. The Kurds say that about two hundred thousand were killed. (Human Rights Watch, which in the early nineties published "Iraq's Crime of Genocide," a definitive study of the attacks, gives a figure of between fifty thousand and a hundred thousand.)

http://www.krg.org/docs/articles/goldberg.asp

And, as we well know, that's just a start.

Even your own side doesn't agree with you.

Weren't you one of the guys telling us a million or hundreds of thousands would die in Afghanistan if the USA attacked?

Good grief.

Is Mr. Yuck Yuck, Dennis Miller, actually right when he calls Arab civilization, in spite of its history of thousands of years, the most immature and underdeveloped on the planet? Even President Musharaff of Pakistan said the same thing so Miller might have a point.

I wouldn't want to be in a GW Bush commercial either but holy exploding smithereens, these Iraqi soccer players need to get a grip . . . . .

"The problem for the IOC is going to be when Saddam is overthrown and people walk into the Olympic headquarters and see the torture chamber and the blood on the floor," Forrest says. "What will they say then?"

Well, we can see what they're saying now can't we?

Cowperson

[nfotiu]

Originally posted by Bingo@Aug 19 2004, 07:50 PM
I'm sure many citizens of that country want the whole mess to go away, but it's hard to argue that when the situation is sorted out that they will be well ahead of where they would have been had the US just let Hussein continue on in power.

It's like asking a guy in the middle of a root canal if he thinks coming to the dentist was a good idea. Chances are he'd roll his eyes. But in a week when his mouth feels normal he's a long way ahead of where his mouth would have been without Mr. Drill.

I do not think it is hard to argue the side that they may be worse off. I don't think Bush's motives were pure in this war, but that is a different argument. But if we were to assume that they truly went into this war with the goal of making Iraqis' lives better in the long run, they do have a good chance of failing. I think their downfalls are that 1) they don't understand what the common Iraqi values in life, and 2) they underestimated the whole explosive chemistry of a country that seems to be fragmented into various groups that can't agree about anything(except maybe a hatred for George Bush).

All we get is headlines and highlights, we don't know the life of an average Iraqi. Maybe this war had a further reaching effect into every city and town than Saddam did. Maybe Saddam's grip on the country was starting to fade anyway, and they were able to live tolerable lives, and now their lives are fear and chaos.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Aug 19 2004, 08:05 PM
I wouldn't want to be in a GW Bush commercial either but holy exploding smithereens, these Iraqi soccer players need to get a grip . . . . .

Why Cow? How would you feel if the shoe was on the other foot? Look at it from their point of view. Sheesh. At least when the "tyrant" was in power the streets were safe to walk at night. The "freedoms" that the Americans have brought have made that impossible. Is that an improvement in quality of life?

Speaking of out of control tyrants, how is the good old US of A doing as far as a quality of life? I'm curious how the country that leads the world in incarceration, violent crime and drug problems has any right to enforce their societal values on anyone? America should focus on geting their own backyard in shape before trying to tell nations half way around the world how to run themselves.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Aug 19 2004, 08:15 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Aug 19 2004, 08:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Aug 19 2004, 08:05 PM
I wouldn't want to be in a GW Bush commercial either but holy exploding smithereens, these Iraqi soccer players need to get a grip . . . . .

Why Cow? How would you feel if the shoe was on the other foot? Look at it from their point of view. Sheesh. At least when the "tyrant" was in power the streets were safe to walk at night. The "freedoms" that the Americans have brought have made that impossible. Is that an improvement in quality of life?

Speaking of out of control tyrants, how is the good old US of A doing as far as a quality of life? I'm curious how the country that leads the world in incarceration, violent crime and drug problems has any right to enforce their societal values on anyone? America should focus on geting their own backyard in shape before trying to tell nations half way around the world how to run themselves. [/b][/quote]
Well, apparently that's not quite true Lanny, at least not for those specific soccer players, which is what we showed up here to argue about.

From Sports Illustrated:

"I was tortured four times after matches. One time, after a friendly [match] against Jordan in Amman that we lost 2-0, Uday had me and three teammates taken to the prison. When we arrived, they took off our shirts, tied our feet together and pulled our knees over a bar as we lay on our backs. Then they dragged us over pavement and concrete, pulling the skin off our backs. Then they pulled us through a sandpit to get sand in our backs. Finally, they made us climb a ladder and jump into a vat of raw sewage. They wanted to get our wounds infected. The next day, and for every day we were there, they beat our feet. My punishment, because I was a star player, was 20 [lashings] per day. I asked the guard how he could ever forgive himself. He laughed and told me if he didn't do this, Uday would do it to him. Uday made us athletes an example. He believed that if people saw he was not afraid to beat a hero, that they would live in greater fear."

Ahmed Kadoim, a FIFA-recognized referee who fled Iraq in December, tells a similar tale of torture at Uday's hands after he refused to fix a soccer game last May. "I was the referee of a match between Al-Shorta and the club of the air force," Kadoim says. "I was told that Shorta should win, but I refused to fix the match. It ended at 2-2. I was taken by Uday's men to Al-Radwaniya prison, where they used hoses and a cane to beat me three times a day. My punishment was 10 beatings each time. When I was bleeding, they forced me into a pool of sewage. The guards laughed and said, 'You should have let them win.' I still am in pain nearly a year later."

Yeah, it was real safe on the street for those guys.

On a broader level, you're seeing a pretty common formula being repeated where you go from a stable dictatorship to democracy:

The streets of Moscow, the streets of Johannesburg, etc, are still dangerous but less dangerous than 10 years ago. Would the majority of Russians or South Africans want to turn back the clock? For a while they did, as some Iraqi's no doubt would like at this point as well. But probably not now.

Cowperson

[nfotiu]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Aug 19 2004, 08:05 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Aug 19 2004, 08:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Prove it wrong? The Iraqi death toll(civilian and millitary) is probably over 100,000. Saddam's death toll during his 25 years is probably +/-50% of that number. Both numbers are incredibly sketchy, provide some evidence that makes that statement as ludicrous as you are suggesting it is.

The fact is, neither Bush nor Saddam, were too concerned about the lives of Iraqis.

No problem.

Using a left wing propoganda organ, iraqbodycount.net, you come up with a maximum of 13,603 as of this week.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Meanwhile, from a New York Times article:

The chemical attacks on Halabja and Goktapa and perhaps two hundred other villages and towns were only a small part of the cataclysm that Saddam's cousin, the man known as Ali Chemical, arranged for the Kurds. The Kurds say that about two hundred thousand were killed. (Human Rights Watch, which in the early nineties published "Iraq's Crime of Genocide," a definitive study of the attacks, gives a figure of between fifty thousand and a hundred thousand.)

http://www.krg.org/docs/articles/goldberg.asp

And, as we well know, that's just a start.

Even your own side doesn't agree with you.

Weren't you one of the guys telling us a million or hundreds of thousands would die in Afghanistan if the USA attacked?

Good grief.

Is Mr. Yuck Yuck, Dennis Miller, actually right when he calls Arab civilization, in spite of its history of thousands of years, the most immature and underdeveloped on the planet? Even President Musharaff of Pakistan said the same thing so Miller might have a point.

I wouldn't want to be in a GW Bush commercial either but holy exploding smithereens, these Iraqi soccer players need to get a grip . . . . .

"The problem for the IOC is going to be when Saddam is overthrown and people walk into the Olympic headquarters and see the torture chamber and the blood on the floor," Forrest says. "What will they say then?"

Well, we can see what they're saying now can't we?

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
13,000 reported civilian deaths! How about military personnel? and unreported deaths. That number could easily top 100,000. Although 13,000 civilian deaths is a pretty staggering number on its own. Especially in a country the size of Iraq. That is roughly 4 times the sept 11th death toll and 50 sept 11's would not have killed as many Iraqis on a percentage basis.