Iraqi Soccer Team: "Stop using us Mr. Bush"

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-08-20 12:11pm

Cairber wrote: I just get a little over zealous when I see people contending that an Iraq with Saddam was better off.

I think my point is sailing somewhere around 50,000 feet above your head, so please answer this question: which Iraq is better; TODAY'S Iraq? Or Saddams Iraq?

Post by **Cairber** » 2004-08-20 12:14pm

Todays. Saddam is gone. These people do not need to fear mass killings anymore. If democracy prevails, they can feel even safer. Hell, even the Olympians dont have to fear the reprocussions for losing, if they do. During Saddam's regime, they were faced with serious problems if Saddam chose them to win and they did not. (saw an interesting history channel prorgam on this one...very scarey)

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-08-20 12:18pm

Cairber wrote:Todays. Saddam is gone. These people do not need to fear mass killings anymore. If democracy prevails, they can feel even safer. Hell, even the Olympians dont have to fear the reprocussions for losing, if they do. During Saddam's regime, they were faced with serious problems if Saddam chose them to win and they did not. (saw an interesting history channel prorgam on this one...very scarey)

TODAY'S Iraq! I even capitalised the word so you wouldn't miss it! You are right in that the POTENTIAL for Iraq to be better then what it was under Saddam is there, but I didn't ask you about the future; today.

Post by **Cairber** » 2004-08-20 12:22pm

In TODAYS Iraq, the Kurdish people along with everyone else who has been targetted for violence in the past no longer need to fear the hand of Saddam. He is gone. They are safer. Women are safer and now RIGHT NOW they are free. Check out the numbers of women's enrollment in schools over there.

Families RIGHT NOW do not need to fear the spontaneous disappearance of their loved ones (ok you mighjt say there have still been kidnappings...but NOTHING like there were under Saddam).

Iraq is a better place, right NOW because right NOW Saddam is gone. Hey, its Van halen...

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-08-20 12:35pm

Are you for real? What about the uprisings? The suicide bombs? The kidnappings? The other shitty things going on today which when taken together outweigh the shitty things under Saddam?

Post by **Cairber** » 2004-08-20 12:38pm

none of these outweigh the genocides of Saddam. I am for real. Genocide is for real, the one attack March 16 1988 killed more innocent women and children than this enture war as killed. period.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-08-20 12:39pm

BoredShirtless wrote:Are you for real? What about the uprisings? The suicide bombs? The kidnappings? The other shitty things going on today which when taken together outweigh the shitty things under Saddam?

While the way she's wording it does suggest circular reasoning, I highly doubt that all those shitty things outweigh the shittiness of having your entire village methodically slaughtered by government troops specifically trained for the purpose and, more importantly, with no one to stop them. The U.S. Army and Iraqi forces in Iraq today actively work to prevent these things. Under Saddam, the Iraqi army was the one doing them in the first place.

Cairber: While I partially agree with you in this case, you really need to work on the debate skills. You'd already have been chewed on much worse without Red's protection, and he can't keep people off of you forever.

Post by **Cairber** » 2004-08-20 12:39pm

doh! no edits...Genocide is for real, the one attack March 16 1988 killed more innocent women and children than this entire war has killed, iraqis and allied forces combined.

Jessie Stamos · Post by **Jessie Stamos** » 2004-08-20 12:41pm

BoredShirtless wrote: TODAY'S Iraq! I even capitalised the word so you wouldn't miss it! You are right in that the POTENTIAL for Iraq to be better then what it was under Saddam is there, but I didn't ask you about the future; today.

No country is better off immediately after a war.

If you would've asked the question about "Hitler's Poland or TODAY'S Poland" in the months after WWII, it would've been the same deal.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-08-20 12:42pm

You're not looking at the average Iraqi. You've used the Kurds, which I've said from the beginning don't relate to average Iraqis because average Iraqis don't want to form their own country.

Post by **Cairber** » 2004-08-20 12:42pm

Just outta curiosity, can you give me more info? You can do it by Pm, if you want. I really do want to work on my skills. And I dont NEED red to protect me

hes just a nice guy that knows I want to get better. He doesnt mean to sound like hes my body guard.

Post by **Cairber** » 2004-08-20 12:44pm

BoredShirtless wrote:You're not looking at the average Iraqi. You've used the Kurds, which I've said from the beginning don't relate to average Iraqis because average Iraqis don't want to form their own country.

women arent average iraqis? interesting...

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-08-20 12:47pm

Jessie Stamos wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote: TODAY'S Iraq! I even capitalised the word so you wouldn't miss it! You are right in that the POTENTIAL for Iraq to be better then what it was under Saddam is there, but I didn't ask you about the future; today.
No country is better off immediately after a war.

How does that change my point that Iraq under Saddam was better then what it is today. And by "better" I mean the average Joe Blow and his family. NOT using people who were trying to rise against him, because that wasn't average was it?

If you would've asked the question about "Hitler's Poland or TODAY'S Poland" in the months after WWII, it would've been the same deal.

So? What's your point? Mine is you can't say that a soccer player OWES the United States anything UNTIL it delivers on its promise; a better country.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-08-20 12:49pm

Cairber wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:You're not looking at the average Iraqi. You've used the Kurds, which I've said from the beginning don't relate to average Iraqis because average Iraqis don't want to form their own country.
women arent average iraqis? interesting...

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-08-20 12:50pm

So? What's your point? Mine is you can't say that a soccer player OWES the United States anything UNTIL it delivers on its promise; a better country.

Said soccer player owes to the United States Army the removal of Uday Hussein, who would otherwise lash him mercilessly for losing to Morocco...

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2004-08-20 12:53pm

Rogue 9 wrote:
So? What's your point? Mine is you can't say that a soccer player OWES the United States anything UNTIL it delivers on its promise; a better country.
Said soccer player owes to the United States Army the removal of Uday Hussein, who would otherwise lash him mercilessly for losing to Morocco...

That's an assumption. And here's another: maybe the United States Army owes HIM when you add the costs up because the US Army dropped a bomb on his house?

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-08-20 01:48pm

Cairber wrote:
BoredShirtless wrote:You're not looking at the average Iraqi. You've used the Kurds, which I've said from the beginning don't relate to average Iraqis because average Iraqis don't want to form their own country.
women arent average iraqis? interesting...

What are you talking about? For one, that came completely out of left field, and for another, your average women are WORSE off now without Saddam enforcing some sort of secular law on Iraq. Women NOW are afraid to leave their homes, get an education, work, not wear headscarfs, and so on because of the Islamist fundies who are taking over areas de facto and are not being stopped by the US Army and co, as well as being terrorized by the chaos throughout Iraq. They turned family law into Sharia, for goodnesss sakes.

PS For future reference, it's considered very bad form in debates to say "go find the information for yourself." The burden of proof is on you when you make a statement. It's like a fundie saying "Well, CS Lewis makes a great statement in such-and-such a book, so instead of me trying to debate you, I'm going to tell you to go read the book and refute it yourself."

CJvR · Post by **CJvR** » 2004-08-20 07:48pm

Jessie Stamos wrote:He thanked them for removing their torturous oppressor immediately before saying he would like to go kill American soldiers for destroying things.

Get him on the next plane to Najaf, he might make it there in time for the extermination of the Sadr-thugs - if the Iraqi goverment ever grow enough balls to order the attack.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-08-20 07:59pm

Cairber wrote:none of these outweigh the genocides of Saddam. I am for real. Genocide is for real, the one attack March 16 1988 killed more innocent women and children than this enture war as killed. period.

What are you basing this on? Those attack killed ~ 10,000 people which is NOT more people then have been killed during the Iraqi war and subsequent occupation.

And in case this escaped your notice, who do you think is running things on a local level now that Saddam is gone. That's right, the fucking religious leaders who are far worse for your average Iraqi citizen then Saddam was.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-08-20 08:05pm

EDIT: BTW Cairber, are you aware that most of the Kurd massacres occured as a direct result of the terrible way the US handled the Iraq situation at the end of the first Gulf War? GHWB promised the Kurds military backing if they rose up against Saddam, something the did, then Bush decided it was prudent to pull his promise of military support which he knew very well would lead to the slaughter of the Kurds as they were already fighting against Saddam's troops.

As predicted Saddam crushed this rebellion, a rebellion instigated by the US and one that we promised to support but didn't follow through on. We are equally culpable for those deaths for inciting the uprising to begin with.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-08-20 08:34pm

Cairber wrote:Todays. Saddam is gone. These people do not need to fear mass killings anymore. If democracy prevails, they can feel even safer. Hell, even the Olympians dont have to fear the reprocussions for losing, if they do. During Saddam's regime, they were faced with serious problems if Saddam chose them to win and they did not. (saw an interesting history channel prorgam on this one...very scarey)

Democracy will prevail about 10 years down the road, when Iraq becomes yet another religious theocracy. We let them officially declare their nation as an Islamic one, and now we're letting that al Sadr fuck into office instead of fucking killing him like we should have.

Expecting Iraq to become a model little Western democracy is a stupid and naive idea, just like expecting all the Iraqis to greet us as liberators was a stupid and naive idea. At the end of the day, these people want an Islamic government. The Qur'an isn't just a religious text; it is a basis for a system of government. And that is why Islam is a problem. That is why, even if we drag these people, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century, they simply will not go. The progression there has to happen naturally, like it has been in Iran. We didn't invade and bomb the shit out of Iran, but I'd put their chances of becoming a modern, Western-style democracy much higher than Iraq's.

So we haven't done shit for them. We've given them a temporary reprieve from a brutal dictator and replaced him with violence in the streets, nut-job insurgents and a bunch of pussies in the government who won't get rid of problems like al Sadr. 10 years down the line, it'll be an Islamic theocracy like Saudi Arabia. So again, what have we given them again? Freedom to choose? Well guess what they're going to choose? That's right: Islam.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2004-08-20 09:58pm

Durandal, that was beautiful.

I'm not sure how people can look at the current situation and say that Iraq is better off. Sure, they don't have a loon in charge, but they're sliding into religious theocracy, and the US is providing a nice big symbol to all the lunatics.

I dimly recall the sentiment being expressed before the invasion that the US can do all the liberating they want, but in the end, they can't change the Iraqis themselves, and they will simply choose what they want, which is NOT what the US wants them to have, its NOT humane, its NOT the 21st century. And that's a shame.

Also, that was a terrible sentence.

Pablo Sanchez · Post by **Pablo Sanchez** » 2004-08-20 11:49pm

I'm just going to come in and point out that this whole discussion is predicated on a false dilemma. One side is saying that the Iraqis have no right to be mad at the US because we overthrew Saddam for them, but it definitely isn't an either/or situation. The Iraqis can be glad that we overthrew Saddam, but also very angry at the difficulties that resulted. Post-Saddam Iraq didn't have to be such an ugly goddawful mess.

It's very likely that a certain few decision that the CPA made before the hand-off could have been done differently and avoided some of these major negative effects. Imagine if they had cleaned the structure of Iraqi government instead of burning the fucker down and trying to build in the ashes. It should have been possible for them to preserve a semblance of order, but instead Bush opted to hit the reset button and throw it all down the toilet into anarchy.

Neko_Oni · Post by **Neko_Oni** » 2004-08-21 02:10am

I guess the Iraqis might be a bit pissed off that America installed Saddam to start with. That followed by years of sanctions have probably made them less than friendly to Americans.

Post by **Cairber** » 2004-08-21 07:20am

The Kernel wrote:EDIT: BTW Cairber, are you aware that most of the Kurd massacres occured as a direct result of the terrible way the US handled the Iraq situation at the end of the first Gulf War? GHWB promised the Kurds military backing if they rose up against Saddam, something the did, then Bush decided it was prudent to pull his promise of military support which he knew very well would lead to the slaughter of the Kurds as they were already fighting against Saddam's troops.

As predicted Saddam crushed this rebellion, a rebellion instigated by the US and one that we promised to support but didn't follow through on. We are equally culpable for those deaths for inciting the uprising to begin with.

That is completely false. Anfal started in the late 70s, which is far before the Gulf War.