I don’t think so. I think a large number of locals are pissed about the security situation and democratic processes taking their time, but on the most part, it won’t be on the scale of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. The Soviets went there to prop up an existing Communist government which didn’t have widespread support among the locals. In Iraq strangely enough, the most senior and respected cleric of Iraqi Al-Sistani has openly critisized Al Sadr and his methods. He has openly supported the Interim governing councils efforts to promote democratic rule in Iraq and called upon his followers to be calm and for a non violent approach to situations which threaten this as a standard.
On the Soviet comparison, again, I don’t think so, the Soviet situation was very much like Vietnam, proping up an undemocratic and unelected government (which abused human rights) against the wishes of the people, you may be right about Al Sadr being unpopular, but the IGC? Nope, alot of people support the processes in which a representative democracy can be a possibility.
I guess that doesn’t count eh?
I’m not denying that, but it would make good sense to whip up further support if they made the Americans stay longer than their mandate allowed. Part of this plan is making sure security is fucked up enough so that no worthwhile reconstruction can be achieved or even the day to day life of people is made difficult, making the average Iraqi even more resentful of the U.S presence in the region.
Who says that its the leaders saying this? Its locals of Falluja, and besides, Militias have the reputation of being looters and theives, its a tactic of survival and funding of their insurgency. It doesn’t matter even if they were getting funded by the Iranians, you can’t rely on one source, diversification of funding is one way to ensure that the insurrection stays alive.
Oh sorry I forgot that one of your talents was mind reading. Jeez.
So his band of militia men are a bunch of true believers? Ever heard of playing both sides against the middle? Or not everyone is a saint?
Ryan_Liam
If you are not willing to put forth the very, very, very minimal effort to accurately attribute the quotations that you use, you can talk to someone else.
I get the impression from you that you seem to think that Sadr is some Iraqi patriot worthy of some applaud. Well, he isn’t. The real Iraq patriots are the people who get on with their lives, try to do whats best, and contribute in trying to make Iraqi society on a whole a little better.
If you didn’t get the link I showed you about one of my quotes here it is again for you to read.
Nitpick – the Soviets invaded because they though the Communist government in Afghanistan, instituted after the Daur Revolution, was going wobbly. The very first thing they did was execute the existing PDPA government officials and establish a new Communist government under their control… sort of like the Governing Council.
I don’t think I said anything about Sadr being unpopular. I said that his supporters are only one slice of a much larger insurgency. And I assume you mean the IIG – the IGC was pretty much reviled by an overwhelming number of Iraqis.
Your quote is only a little bit better than your :rolleyes: debating tactic. That quote shows that one person wants the US to stay. Great. There’s no doubt that there are many like him, but as others have already cited, polls have consistently shown that a solid majority of Iraqis want the US out. One quote doesn’t rise to disputing that fact.
Then why not go through the proper channels and be elected legitimately. Oh I forgot, he doesn’t think the IGC is legit, well ok, to prove to the people of Iraq and the world that he plays fair, why not stand up for election. I’ll tell you why he doesn’t., because the majority of Iraqis (even those who admire him confronting the Americans) know what will happen if he took charge. There would be another Taliban-Iranian mixed theocracy. Another system imposed yet again by people from the top.
Besides, your mixing his defiance with his proposals for how Iraq should be governed. Something which most Iraqis don’t support.
Wouldn’t it be great if some people stopped deriding the US for its efforts to at least bring some semblence of democracy to a state where its not experienced it for a very long time?
Well most Iraqis would support the american regime, if they insurgents would stop trying to disrupt the infrastructure of the country and mess everything up for everyone - making the americans unpopular because they aren’t doing the job.
How can the americans do anything right if they have to contend with fighting, international pressure, and a thousand and one tasks to do on a day to day basis. Anyone would crack under that kind of pressure.
Is it not possible that given the choice, Iraqis would want an Islamic theocracy? Reliable polling data is not likely to be found, but we need to recognize the possiblility that a western democracy is not necessarily a universal desire.
This realization’s more than a year too late.
The insurgency movement gathered steam from the Coalitions initial failures as you pointed out. If the Coalition had been properly prepared and had taken enough people to do the job initially, there would not have been as much of an insurgency movement.
Should’ve thought about this more than a year ago too (before we invaded).
Yeah! If Iraqis would just stop worrying and learn to love the invasion and military occupation of their country, everything would be great! Those ten thousand or so civilian deaths in Iraq are actually a GOOD thing, because now those people have been liberated from all their worldly concerns!
I wonder why the Wolverines in “Red Dawn” didn’t roll over and accept the invasion of the US as a fact of life. They should have realized that they were messing things up for everybody because of their fighting. Patrick Swayze was certainly personally responsible for the misery of many Americans by taking up arms against the Soviet and Cuban invaders. Shame on him.
[sarcasm OFF]
If you don’t like the job then you shouldn’t oughta’ took it!
Plus the occupation isn’t failling to get Iraq’s shit together just because of the insurgents, the total and criminal lack of pre-planning for the post-war situation (except for the oil plant) and dumb stuff like disbanding the army didn’t help.
Ryan_Liam I’m impressed by your optimism that elections will magically solve everything, but remember the number of post-colonial states started with high hopes and elections in, say, Africa? Tribal loyalties, religious leaders who command more respect than polititians, corruption, etc.
I’ll totally agree with you that it’s in the Iraqis’ best interests to go along with the democratization process, however imperfect it might be, - but people don’t always act in their own best interests.
Well, if this becomes more of an explosive problem after elections, then fine, we failed and we should leave them too it. But to not try and at least push them in the right direction is downright wrong and offensive to the Iraqis. I didn’t support the war and the invasion, but I do support now what we’re at least trying to do for Iraqis best interests. If Iraqis continue to increase their support to a murderer and tyrant like Sadr, then the hope is truely lost.
Writing off a whole effort to get them back on track before its even completed is downright offensive.
Ok, I’ll give you all a promise, if they have elections and violence isn’t down from what it is like now. You’re all right and I’m wrong.
Referring to my claim that it’ll be a puppet government for years to come.
Look, history did not begin in 2002. The U.S. has run puppet governments in Cuba, the Philippines, El Salvador, Guatemala, et al., which often DID result in full-scale insurrections; or in the case of their puppet government in South Vietnam, there was already a civil war a-brewin’. The usual U.S. response was to arm a proxy fascist government that killed a whole bunch of people, and in the case of Southeast Asia, and the Phillippines, kill God only knows how many people themselves. Of course, it often resulted in disaster, but I’m not saying Iraq is going to turn out great. If history is any guide, it’s going to be a disaster.
The USA is not going to allow Iraq to take any path other than what’s good for U.S. interests - meaning the interests of powerful U.S. politicians and businesses - which I claim based on the fact that that’s the way U.S. meddling in other countries has been done for two centuries, and is the way ALL powerful nations run their affairs. It is absolutely preposterous to think the Iraqis will be permitted to exercise their democratic rights if it threatens American business interests, and a lot of dead folks in Latin America and Indochina serve as proof.
If this is the case, why not do this in Japan and Germany after WWII? Or the whole of Western Europe?
Thats too early to tell, if the election are a farce then I’ll agree. But why not do the same thing in Afghanistan as in Iraq?
A mixture of the Cold War threat, where anything anti Communist was good and arrogance. If the U.S doesn’t learn from their mistakes, well, more power to you. I have more faith than that.
The reason people are pointing out the negatives isn’t point-scoring - if everything works out lovely in Iraq my pleasure in that will not be diminished by having lost an argument to a Mancunian on an internet board! I’ve been wrong about plenty of things; I’d love to be proved wrong now
Which is pretty much my position, but the main reason I opposed the war was because I thought it would turn out pretty much as it has (though I thought it would take longer to get to this stage)
predicting that something bad is going to happen isn’t the same as wanting it to happen, or working towards making it happen (a confusion many seem to make on this board)
