Iraqi soccer players no fan of Bush

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by nfotiu@Aug 19 2004, 08:31 PM
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.

Well, if you want to commit suicide with an argument like that, who am I to stop you?

Sure, Iraqi military deaths from the conflict were in the 10's of thousands but its also estimated Saddam's venture into Iran in the early 1980's led to the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi military personnel and certainly around 1 million Iranians. All Saddam's doing.

Give it up.

I can see you arguing civilian deaths - and I supplied a reference from the left wing so take your argument to them - but the military is . . . . well, guys with guns. Not that you'd win that one either.

Cowperson

[nfotiu]

Originally posted by Cowperson+Aug 19 2004, 08:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Cowperson @ Aug 19 2004, 08:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-nfotiu@Aug 19 2004, 08:31 PM
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.

Well, if you want to commit suicide with an argument like that, who am I to stop you?

Sure, Iraqi military deaths from the conflict were in the 10's of thousands but its also estimated Saddam's venture into Iran in the early 1980's led to the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi military personnel and certainly around 1 million Iranians. All Saddam's doing.

Give it up.

I can see you arguing civilian deaths - and I supplied a reference from the left wing so take your argument to them - but the military is . . . . well, guys with guns. Not that you'd win that one either.

Cowperson [/b][/quote]
To hold Saddam directly responsible for all of the casualties in the Iraq/Iran war is pretty ludicrous. It was just an escallation of years of fighting, and a good chunk of the Iraqi population probably believed in what they were fighting for. Many of those deaths can also be blamed on Israel, France, Russia and the United States. Weren't Iraq the good guys back then anyway?

The Iraqi soldiers would be alive today had US not invaded. They left many wives, children and friends at home to remember that the US was responsible for their deaths.

[habernac]

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.

A leader the people love? Says who? Is this why people keep defecting to the US? Is this why they risk their lives in floating bathtubs to reach the shores of Florida? I know a Cuban defector quite well. He and his family have no love for Fidel. Lots of fear and loathing, but no love.

[calculoso]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Aug 19 2004, 01:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Aug 19 2004, 01:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> 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. [/b]

You mean... like all those Cubans who try to flee to Florida every year? If it was so great there, why would they take such drastic measures to leave, knowing they only might get to stay?

<!--QuoteBegin-Lanny_MacDonald
At least when the "tyrant" was in power the streets were safe to walk at night?[/quote]

Safe for everyone or only those who "agreed" with Saddam's rules?

If it weren't for those rebels who fight against everything and everything, including the Iraqi people themselves, it would be safe to walk at night.... for everyone.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by nfotiu+Aug 19 2004, 08:49 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (nfotiu @ Aug 19 2004, 08:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Well, if you want to commit suicide with an argument like that, who am I to stop you?

Sure, Iraqi military deaths from the conflict were in the 10's of thousands but its also estimated Saddam's venture into Iran in the early 1980's led to the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi military personnel and certainly around 1 million Iranians. All Saddam's doing.

Give it up.

I can see you arguing civilian deaths - and I supplied a reference from the left wing so take your argument to them - but the military is . . . . well, guys with guns. Not that you'd win that one either.

Cowperson

To hold Saddam directly responsible for all of the casualties in the Iraq/Iran war is pretty ludicrous. It was just an escallation of years of fighting, and a good chunk of the Iraqi population probably believed in what they were fighting for. Many of those deaths can also be blamed on Israel, France, Russia and the United States. Weren't Iraq the good guys back then anyway?

The Iraqi soldiers would be alive today had US not invaded. They left many wives, children and friends at home to remember that the US was responsible for their deaths. [/b][/quote]
Okay, you've said some hilarious things but that takes the cake.

500,000 Iraqi's and 1 million Iranians would be alive today if Saddam hadn't invaded. That's simply the way it is. Just like tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers might be alive if the USA hadn't invaded. That's simply the way it is too.

Meanwhile, you're blaming the USA for both!!

Didn't you see the ludicrous contradiction in your argument?

I happened to have been around in 1980 and clearly remember it was a stunning sneak attack that took everyone by surprise. The Americans weren't sorry about it for sure and the Russians probably weren't either.

The Iranian military had been largely demonized in Iranian society, many of its best officers purged and executed (Stalinists!!) and high quality equipment left to rot.

Saddam thought he had a chance so he went for it.

The Russians and Americans then amused themselves for about 10 years keeping each side equitably supplied and dependent on them.

You know . . . . . the Bill Maher Strategy.

The history:

http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/india/iraniraq1980.htm

I've got to drive to Turner Valley. Back later.

Cowperson

[calculoso]

Originally posted by nfotiu@Aug 19 2004, 02:08 PM
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.

And maybe it wasn't. Maybe they were all cowering in their houses for fear of looking at someone the wrong way and being shot on the spot.

You're right... we don't know the life of an average Iraqi. We don't know all of the atrocities they've gotten used to. We don't know the constant daily fears that they had to put up with. We don't know the constant anti-Western world propoganda they had to endure.

You can believe that they were all living their own cozy little lives in harmony. Some of them probably were. Others, like those that have fled the country, know differently.. and their actions speak volumes.

[Bingo]

To me this whole string is just crazy.

I don't want to offend anyone, but I do think that the level of emotion attached to people's dislike of Bush, The Bush Adminstration and possibly the United States has really clouded issues like this.

Going into Iraq had a downside of removing a vicious dictator. A DOWNSIDE! The uptick was finding weapons that could have been used to attack innocent civilians, something that didn't play out.

The soccer spokesman have been conditioned to hate the West. That's what they are talking about, and that's why I called them ungrateful. They are ungrateful. It's like talking to a racist person that blames black people for all urban crime. Pointless to bring up statistics to show crime rates in other demographic groups, their minds are made up.

I wish the US had a better plan for after the war. I wish that Iraq didn't have an open board to zealots from all over the region to take up the fight. I wish Iraqi citizens would realize that the fastest way to get their lives back was to help the US military and stop hiding insurgents and terrorists to a point where they stump their own development.

But bottom line ... a dictator is gone. Never a bad thing.

[Kobasew7]

I have to agree with you Cow on this topic (shocker, I know) but I feel like you..the Iraqi soccer players are coming off very ungreatful in a situation the article you provided shows of all Iraqis, the athletes benefitted the most from the US lead invasion.

The beatings, tortures and even deaths over losing games is a lot worse in my mind than having a street that is destroyed, but can be repaired and would alreayd be repaired if local nut jobs and terrorist were not taking workers hostage left and right and chopping off their heads.

Im not a Bush fan, and Im not a war fan ... but the soccer team, who complained prior to the war of the torture and unwillingness of some to play ..now playing freely and without worry, only with pride to win for thier country ..should be the last complaining about the war efforts to oust Sadaam and his sons.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Bingo@Aug 19 2004, 09:08 PM

But bottom line ... a dictator is gone. Never a bad thing.

In who's eyes? Who said he was a dictator? The people who he lived under, or the people who invaded the country? History is a funny thing. It is written by the conquorers, not the conquored. It would be interesting to see what the defeated have said throughout time in regards to their leaders after a defeat.

In regards to those who think all Cubans "hate Castro", because of a the "bathtub brigade", you need to speak to more than one person to get the jest of the issue. I used to believe exactly what was portrayed by the media as well, until I moved to Florida and got to know many Cubans. A lot of those that leave Cuba are because of the crippling damage that the AMERICAN lead boycott has had on Cuba itself. A lot of those people risking their lives are those that have nothing left to lose by making the perilous trip to places where they can get needed services like medical attention because of the lack of services available in ther homeland. There are a lot more people who have been forced to leave Cuba because of the American sanctions than have been forced to leave Cuba because of Castro's mismanagement of the Island. If America would lift the sanctions on Cuba the people would stay, where their homes and family are. There are two sides to the story, but we only get one side of it from the media.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Aug 19 2004, 04:01 PM
In who's eyes? Who said he was a dictator? The people who he lived under, or the people who invaded the country? History is a funny thing. It is written by the conquorers, not the conquored. It would be interesting to see what the defeated have said throughout time in regards to their leaders after a defeat.

So you're telling me that a guy that has gased his own people, used a wood chipper to turn human beings into chards and had a gestapo like police force to hold people in check might be attractive to some citizens?

Give me a break. That's lunacy.

I'll give you that not all dictators are bad leaders, I suppose it's possible for one person with autocratic rule could rule for the benefit of the people, but Hussein was clearly not one of them.

You know that, I know that, and Iraqis know that.

They hate the war, I don't blame them for hating the war, but the removal of Hussein was a benefit to them in that at least now they have a fighting chance for a life without state fear.

[home_sweet_dome]

Personally, I don't blame the soccer players one bit. Their own situation may have improved as a result of the US invasion, but the situation of the Average Joe Iraqi is much worse IMO.

I agree with Lanny 100% on this one. I honestly think most of you in the pro-war camp watch a little too much of the Corrupt News Networt (CNN) or Fox. The picture they paint really ain't how it is at all.

For example, I have a Kurdish friend who lives in Calgary and whose dad is currently in Iraq. Even he, as a Kurd (you know, the people most oppressed under Saddam's reign) believes the war has only made things worse and despises US foreign policy and the Bush administration with a passion.

Also, read this story from the LA Times for a very small sampling of why there is so much hate for the US within Iraq and the Arab world. The Handover that wasn't

Have you even heard of this story on any of the news networks? Of course not, cuz most the facts simply don't get reported accurately, if at all, on major US news networks.

Simply put, its not a "War On Terror" its a "War OF Terror".

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by home_sweet_dome@Aug 19 2004, 10:09 PM
Personally, I don't blame the soccer players one bit. Their own situation may have improved as a result of the US invasion, but the situation of the Average Joe Iraqi is much worse IMO.

I agree with Lanny 100% on this one. I honestly think most of you in the pro-war camp watch a little too much of the Corrupt News Networt (CNN) or Fox. The picture they paint really ain't how it is at all.

For example, I have a Kurdish friend who lives in Calgary and whose dad is currently in Iraq. Even he, as a Kurd (you know, the people most oppressed under Saddam's reign) believes the war has only made things worse and despises US foreign policy and the Bush administration with a passion.

Also, read this story from the LA Times for a very small sampling of why there is so much hate for the US within Iraq and the Arab world. The Handover that wasn't

Have you even heard of this story on any of the news networks? Of course not, cuz most the facts simply don't get reported accurately, if at all, on major US news networks.

Simply put, its not a "War On Terror" its a "War OF Terror".

So you use a mainstream media source to tell us it isn't in the mainstream media?

You guys at The Daily Leftist kill me.

Meanwhile, here's the author: By Antonia Juhasz, Antonia Juhasz is a project director at the International Forum on Globalization in San Francisco

Yeah, there's a neutral guy.

Cowperson

[calculoso]

Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Aug 19 2004, 04:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Aug 19 2004, 04:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Who said he was a dictator? [/b]

I don't know what else you'd call someone else who has a "my way or the grave" look to life... other than a murderer...

<!--QuoteBegin-Lanny MacDonald
A lot of those that leave Cuba are because of the crippling damage that the AMERICAN lead boycott has had on Cuba itself.[/quote]
Gotcha. Everything that America does is bad and without merit. All sanctions are bad. The people who do things to cause said sanctions are angels. Gotcha.

Obviously I'm being facetious here. I know you're not that naive. Sanctions against Cuba probably should be lifted... but if you have a country with a certain history and no changes (other than time) have been made, can you totally blame them and only them? That's like blaming the UN for the sanctions to Iraq and ignoring why those sanctions were put in place in the first place.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by home_sweet_dome@Aug 19 2004, 04:09 PM
Personally, I don't blame the soccer players one bit. Their own situation may have improved as a result of the US invasion, but the situation of the Average Joe Iraqi is much worse IMO.

I agree with Lanny 100% on this one. I honestly think most of you in the pro-war camp watch a little too much of the Corrupt News Networt (CNN) or Fox. The picture they paint really ain't how it is at all.

For example, I have a Kurdish friend who lives in Calgary and whose dad is currently in Iraq. Even he, as a Kurd (you know, the people most oppressed under Saddam's reign) believes the war has only made things worse and despises US foreign policy and the Bush administration with a passion.

Also, read this story from the LA Times for a very small sampling of why there is so much hate for the US within Iraq and the Arab world. The Handover that wasn't

Have you even heard of this story on any of the news networks? Of course not, cuz most the facts simply don't get reported accurately, if at all, on major US news networks.

Simply put, its not a "War On Terror" its a "War OF Terror".

Naming a very leftist source as a good factual documentation of a failed US war is a huge waste of time. The LA Times has had their hand slapped for their editorial. They simply can't be trusted.

Anyone can find a story to support pretty much anything.

Here's a Pakistani site interviewing an Iraqi life who thinks the Hussein ouster is great. Life is Good

But that doesn't make it a slam dunk. Plenty of accounts out there.

[home_sweet_dome]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Aug 19 2004, 03:15 PM
So you use a mainstream media source to tell us it isn't in the mainstream media?

I said it wasn't on the tube, specifically major US news networks. Never said anything about print, there is a difference.

And if that whole article is out to lunch cuz it ain't from a "neutral guy", then how do you explain the Bremer orders and the ongoing "rebuilding" (read: money grabbing, with little to no regard for Iraqis) of Iraq by American companies? Or is this all just a figment of my Leftist imagination?

[home_sweet_dome]

Originally posted by Bingo@Aug 19 2004, 03:31 PM


Anyone can find a story to support pretty much anything.

Here's a Pakistani site interviewing an Iraqi life who thinks the Hussein ouster is great. Life is Good

But that doesn't make it a slam dunk. Plenty of accounts out there.

True enough, many opinions out there.

Even I'll be the first to admit that ousting Saddam was a good thing. It's the way in which it was done and the alterior US motives in the whole thing that bothers me.

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by home_sweet_dome+Aug 19 2004, 10:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (home_sweet_dome @ Aug 19 2004, 10:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Cowperson@Aug 19 2004, 03:15 PM
So you use a mainstream media source to tell us it isn't in the mainstream media?#

I said it wasn't on the tube, specifically major US news networks. Never said anything about print, there is a difference.


And if that whole article is out to lunch cuz it ain't from a "neutral guy", then how do you explain the Bremer orders and the ongoing "rebuilding" (read: money grabbing, with little to no regard for Iraqis) of Iraq by American companies? Or is this all just a figment of my Leftist imagination? [/b][/quote]
One could easily argue that a massive influx of foreign investment is necessary to jump start the Iraqi economy so yes, it is a figment of the imagination of the left, in fact a contemptible, self-serving argument on the part of the left really.

Of course, the left is arguing the opposite.

It simply lies with the economic argument you wish to believe in. Most likely the middle ground will be the result, an Iraqi solution as the government sees fit.

A democratically elected Iraqi government - or even the one appointed - CAN change any of those provisions left by Bremer as it wishes according to the mainstream media, something your Daily Leftist author forgot to include in his missive. Pay attention: the link below is what a real news story looks like instead of the crap you were trying to peddle earlier:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jun26.html

From the story:

An annex to the country's interim constitution requires the approval of a majority of Allawi's ministers, as well as the interim president and two vice presidents, to overturn any of Bremer's edicts. A senior U.S. official in Iraq noted recently that it would "not be easy to reverse" the orders.

It appears unlikely that all of the orders will be followed. Many of them reflect an idealistic but perhaps futile attempt to impose Western legal, economic and social concepts on a tradition-bound nation that is reveling in anything-goes freedom after 35 years of dictatorial rule.



Secondly, the economic impact of the final orders of Paul Bremer, the administrative framework he left behind for the Iraqi's to assume, was discussed at some length on both CNN and MSNBC as far as I can remember. Certainly, those orders were no secret.

And why would you think there would be a difference between mainstream print media and mainstream television media in this regard.?

Usually the radical left and radical right lumps them together and accuses them of favouring the other side. You've got a novel new approach that I haven't seen before by separating them.

By the way, you have at least two right wing people in this thread - not myself - who believe the mainstream media are "liberal" while at least two - including yourself - who believe the mainstream media is an organ of the Bush administration.

Cowperson

[RougeUnderoos]

Hmmmm. An unelected New England fancypants is issuing edicts, telling people how to drive and saying who and who cannot run in Iraqi elections and the people are unhappy about the situation in Iraq? Whatever for?

[Cowperson]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@Aug 20 2004, 12:35 AM
Hmmmm. An unelected New England fancypants is issuing edicts, telling people how to drive and saying who and who cannot run in Iraqi elections and the people are unhappy about the situation in Iraq? Whatever for?

I agree. I don't blame them.

I'd be less upset regarding the economic stuff.

Moreover, as the Washington Post story notes, many of his edicts are likely to be washed away.

We already know Saddam is in line for the death penalty for one.

Cowperson

[home_sweet_dome]

Originally posted by Cowperson@Aug 19 2004, 04:40 PM


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Jun26.html

From the story:

[i] An annex to the country's interim constitution requires the approval of a majority of Allawi's ministers, as well as the interim president and two vice presidents, to overturn any of Bremer's edicts. A senior U.S. official in Iraq noted recently that it would "not be easy to reverse" the orders.

Thanks for the article Cow. It basically says the exact same stuff as the article I posted, so thanks for helping me out.

Of course with the approval of so many people, especially US influenced people, needed to overturn Bremer's edicts, they ain't gonna be overturned anytime soon, thus allowing America to continue to control Iraq, just as my original article stated.

So, um, thanks again I guess. Now the "real news stories" and the "crap I was peddling earlier" both seem to support my original point.