One thing I’ve got to add, though, is that justifying the invasion of Iraq with the promise that this all will work out peachy-fine in the end, and the Iraqis will have democracy when all is done, is totally bullshit.
Anything could happen, but there’s no concrete reason to believe democracy will happen there.
The only thing that’s sure about Iraq’s future is that we Westerners will eventually leave.
Ain’t going to happen. Those guys run for the hills any chance they get.
Because they’re not properly equiped.
You know what, fuck you, to think that the Iraqis are incapable of achieving the aims of democracy with our help is insulting. They will do it, and they will have our help and backing.
I wasn’t complaining about her being under occupation, jesus, I was complaining about her bias against the United States in everything, haven’t you noticed? Shes not used the same intensity of her writing against the Coalition as she does against the insurgents has she? Thats what am getting at, and that is what annoys me.
What I don’t get is that no one has yet commented on the Blogs I’ve shown, somehow when you all read riverbend its close to the truth, but when I provide alternative links, its scorned or not even mentioned. Care to explain?
Ask Israel about the boming part, about the nation being there, well, the Americans and the Coalition are trying to create the environment to make democratic elections possible.
Oh but what about when that teenager wanders off, starts to torture small animals and attack random people, then the reigns need to be pulled in, don’t ya think? The exact same thing was needed in Fallujah. Iraq needs a strong centrist government to hold the country together, at least until the situation becomes tenable where devolution of power can be made. Until then, we’re stuck with a centralised model I’m afraid.
I’m complaining about they way she tries to say the fault lies all at Americas feet, even situations which are or which were out of its control.
Did you know there actually has been elections since the invasion, of local councils and governors?
Yes, but it doesn’t make me believe that it cannot or will not happen.
Sure is, within reason of course, you know, not setting up your own militia to take the place of local police forces, or governors or councils, or inciting to riot when demands are not met, or invoking a nation wide revolt because you are found guilty of organising a murder of a rival cleric, then holding onto the most holiest of shrines in Shia Islam to try and benefit his own political standing.
Ryan:
Leaving aside politics for a minute…
You know the saying, “Walk a mile in someone’s shoes before you criticise them?”
Try to imagine for a moment what’s she going through, everything she’s experienced. It’s perfectly natural for her to express some frustration and anger, and she’s doing it in a healthy way–by writing her feelings in an online blog, where nobody can get hurt.
You can debate the facts all you want (and it might make for a good GD thread), but she can’t help the way she feels–don’t call her out for that.
Thanks very much, RTF.
I’m so fed up with this bullshit. You’ve only implied it here, but plenty of others have put forth this notion that anyone who doesn’t think Iraq will end up a perfect model of democracy is a bigot. Particularly coming from Ryan_Liam, this is absurd. Who is being insulted here? The Iraqi people? The US and UK rushed to invade Iraq over a phony threat and bombed the crap out of the country, and NOW you’re concerned about hurting people’s feelings? Go fuck yourself, you disingenuous prick.
Iraq has no history of democracy, and I don’t think what’s happened there over the last year and a half will convince the people that democracy is so great. Whether the government can represent the people, or if it’s even going to try, has yet to be determined. And then there are the minor matters of sectarian tensions and a violent insurgency. That’s why establishing a democracy there is going to be such an uphill battle. They don’t know what the aims of democracy are, and it’s yet to be determined that the present methods will help them reach those aims. Not because anybody here is looking down on the Iraqi people or thinks they’re “incapable.”
You know what? I don’t think Iraq IS ready for democracy. Culturally they’re too tribalistic and if a democracy outlasts US occupation at all (highly doubtful, I think) it will be like the “democracy” in PNG. The person with the most relatives wins regardless of aptitude and will continue to get into power despite obvious abuses of it.
Benevolent dictatorship, like in Singapore, is I think the best thing that we can hope for in Iraq, and trying for anything else is a fool’s errand.
Huh? You must have misinterpreted what I was saying, perhaps because you’re so incredibly stupid that even reading your native language is a stretch for you.
Her country’s government (whether good or evil) was overthrown. It is now being occupied by the United States. Therefore, she is pissed at the United States. The United States is an occupying force in her country, and started a war that is having negative effects on her life. It is natural, therefore, that she is pissed off at the country that started a war in her homeland and is occupying it.
I can try to find one syllable synonyms if you need me to.
Seriously, what’s not to get about her feelings? Imagine living a reasonably happy life. Sure, the government sucks, but you get along. Suddenly foreign soldiers come in and fuck everything up, and your friends start to die, and your country is in ruins. Are you really going to welcome the occupiers with open arms?
I know you’re a nationalistic moron. But really, even if you think everyone else should worship the U.S., and welcome us at every juncture, how likely do you think it is?
What you’ve just said doesn’t make sense. Even if Ryan is a nationalist, he lives in the UK. Why would he want everyone to worship the U.S. if he’s a British nationalist?
[QUOTE=Marley23]
Thanks very much, RTF.
I’m so fed up with this bullshit. You’ve only implied it here, but plenty of others have put forth this notion that anyone who doesn’t think Iraq will end up a perfect model of democracy is a bigot. Particularly coming from Ryan_Liam, this is absurd. Who is being insulted here? The Iraqi people? The US and UK rushed to invade Iraq over a phony threat and bombed the crap out of the country, and NOW you’re concerned about hurting people’s feelings? Go fuck yourself, you disingenuous prick.
[QUOTE]
What the fuck? Since when did imply anyone here would be a bigot if they didn’t think Iraq would be a democracy? I know I’ve been given abuse saying I’m a racist prick because somehow I didn’t like Riverbends blog and didn’t enjoy her outlook which has been shown to be different than the Iraqi opinions I’ve heard, but anyway, no matter what anyone says on here Iraqis will achieve the democracy they deserve, and we’ll help them get it.
Excuse me, I didn’t think the invasion was right, I knew it was on a crappy and phony pretext, I don’t pretend to think for a minute it was to liberate the Iraqis from Saddam but what I do know now is that should support the people in trying to create the society that they want to build, which the majority say is a democratic and representative.
You think there will be some representative democracy when we leave? Yeah fucking right.
I don’t care, we are better than Saddams regime and there is alot of people still left who think that it was a good idea for us to have gotten rid of him, there is always turmoil after an invasion and occupation until the dust settles. Our help though getting them the democracy they deserve will eventually strengthen them and help them soldier on.
You think anyone lived in Saddams Iraq a reasonable happy life except for party members and senior government officials? Try and think of that and then compare with Riverbend.
In the beginning, she wrote pretty harshly about others as well.
You might want to read (or reread) this entry where she writes about her feelings towards USA and US soldiers in Iraq:
She can say what she wants on an anonymous blog. That’s good. Unrestricted, uncensored internet access is a good thing, and a new thing.
But before the occupation she had a job as a computer programmer. She could wear what she chose, and what she chose was jeans, and no hijab. She could go out when she wanted. Now, she has to be accompanied by two male relatives and wear a long skirt and a hijab whenever she leaves her house. (link, link) And while she doesn’t risk being killed or raped by Saddam’s people anymore, the risk of being raped, maimed, abducted, or killed by criminals, fundamentalists or “friendly fire” isn’t a huge improvement.
Stop and think about that a moment. Imagine that the place you live suddenly becomes so unsafe that you can’t leave home without two men escorting you. If you go out alone shopping, or to visit friends, or just to take a walk, you run a real risk of being raped, abducted, or killed. Imagine that the weirdest loony religous fundamentalists in your country suddenly has armed gangs, and that there’s not enough law enforcement to keep them from attacking you if you don’t dress or act the way they think you should.
As a direct result of the occupation, her life has become a hell of a lot worse, in almost every aspect. Is it strange that she’s pissed?
Listen fucktard. Maybe you’re just really, really stupid. Comparing one blog to another is not a way of evaluating truth. Blogs are online opinions.
OPINIONS ARE NOT THE SAME AS FACTS
Are you even remotely aware that there is a difference between the two?
Who would those people be? Hamid Karzai? The only people who supported the US invasion were the ones who stood to gain something from it.
Yeah, Tardball, that’s exactly what I think. In fact, there’s all sorts of evidence of it. Or you could just use half an ounce of common sense. After all, the Iraqi people didn’t exactly welcome us with open arms. In fact, they’re shooting at us. Does that sound like the behavior of a group of people who’ve just been freed from a brutal dictator? Fact is, Saddam Hussein was nowhere near as bad as living in the middle of a war that shows no signs of letting up.
I mean, for crying out loud. Iraq was no paradise, but it’s not as though there were concentration camps or death squads constantly traipsing the country. It had a reasonable standard of living, in contrast to some of the kleptocracies we support. Saddam was bad, yeah, but he wasn’t anywhere near as bad, for most of the populace, as having gunfire around you or losing your home and family. Jesus fuck, what’s so hard to understand about that? I mean, by the time we went in, all his weapons programs were long disbanded. The Kurds had autonomy. The country was controlled by a secular dictator. Now who’s going to move in to fill the gap? Islamist warlords, like in Afghanistan?
Ryan_liam, PaulFitzroy and Nietzsche - all in one thread !
/head explodes
What does Allawi get to gain from all this, he leaves a comfortable existance, in Britain, in relative obscurity, to become terrorist target number one. Yeah, real gain there :rolleyes:
Well, explain this picture then???
oh wait, its a perfectly choreographed sham.
Who says I’m denying the fact some wouldn’t welcome us with open arms, I keep stating, and repeating, we need and will help Iraq restore order and bring about a representative government. I have no doubts in thinking this can be possible.
Look past all the violence, theres still a functioning society, try and look what they want, because most seem to be on board with what we’re proposing and despite the difficulties, are working towards it.
Good for you. That’s great that you are able to see everything in such simple minded minded terms. It must make life so much easier for you.
As easy as it is for you to spin around something I’ve said to use in your shitty comment about my intellect.
The complete irony of this statement escapes you, no doubt.
Except, you know, the ones who are shooting at us. Oh, and the unarmed ones we killed in a mosque. And, for that matter, the prisoners at Abu Ghraib. And of course the families of those who just got caught in the crossfire.
Ryan_Liam, dear, if “most” of them wanted us there, our troops wouldn’t keep getting killed, now, would they?
Well, he gets to return to Iraq as the new dictator, supported by the armies of the USA and UK. I’d say that was a real gain for him.
Erm, yes, even though, he’s there until the mandate of an elected government forces him to leave office.
Yeah, pretty Saddamist indeed :rolleyes:
Yes, even though he’s face numerous assasination attempts for a job which he’s only in for for 6-8 months.
I don’t think so, plenty of societies and communities have survived large amounts of violence directed against them, its not different for the Iraqis either.
Hmmm, maybe yes they do not want us there, but they do understand that we must remain there until the Iraaq people can fend for themselves. Troops get killed by disenfranchised Sunnis, in which large elements of their community are committed to participating in a democracy.
And the ones who behead people, and! Armed gangs who kidnap and murder and ransom large amounts from civilians. The rest are decent people.
Have you looked at this guy’s past history - formerly an assassin for Saddam and the CIA - and one of the first things he did was to bring back the death penalty. He has said a number of times that Saddam will get the death penalty, even before any farce of a trial has taken place.
http://www.envirosagainstwar.org/edit/index.php?op=view&itemid=1679
If people have tried to assassinate him, maybe they remember what he once was before America ‘sanitised’ him and installed him as Prime minister. Bush has nothing but praise, after all, for this former assassin.
If Saddam is to be executed for supposed crimes that took place years ago , is it not total hypocrisy to put one of his former henchmen in his place, who committed the same crimes.