The Voices of the Iraqi's: TMA, Nyar, Earthnuker plz read

[emprworm]

Id like to specifically hear from TMA, Nyar, and Earthnuker please after you read this segment and then read the corresponding article. In return, I will do you the curtosey and read any article you want me to. I am simply asking that you read this. Its not my writing so you don't have to worry about all my "debate tactics"

Voice of Iraqis

Why don’t antiwar types want to hear them?

By Amir Taheri

Could I have the microphone for one minute to tell the people about my life?" asked the Iraqi grandmother.

I spent part of a recent Saturday with the so-called "antiwar" marchers in London in the company of some Iraqi friends. Our aim had been to persuade the organizers to let at least one Iraqi voice to be heard. Soon, however, it became clear that the organizers were as anxious to stifle the voice of the Iraqis in exile as was Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

The Iraqis had come with placards reading "Freedom for Iraq" and "American rule, a hundred thousand times better than Takriti tyranny!"

But the tough guys who supervised the march would have none of that. Only official placards, manufactured in thousands and distributed among the "spontaneous" marchers, were allowed. These read "Bush and Blair, baby-killers," " Not in my name," "Freedom for Palestine," and "Indict Bush and Sharon."

Not one placard demanded that Saddam should disarm to avoid war.

The goons also confiscated photographs showing the tragedy of Halabja, the Kurdish town where Saddam's forces gassed 5,000 people to death in 1988.

Now, please finish reading this article here. http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-taheri022603.asp

Please do not comment until you read the article. To this date I have argued much with earthnuker, nyar, and TMA yet not once have I really heard them talk about what the Iraqi's think. So I am simply asking you (though I cant force you) to read that article before you respond. Same goes with anyone else. Thanks.

[emprworm]

*sigh*... are you going to hit that reply button....and you still haven't read the article?....

no, really, please read the article :D

[Anathema]

First, if Sadam could be disposed with as little bloodshed as the Pentagon would claim I'd be supporting the war. I agree with you that some of those anti war protesters out there need to wake up and see what Sadams regime is truly about. But, in a worst case scenario, Sadam would use chemical weapons (not missiles, but grenades and other sutff) against Kurds and Shiietes for no other reason then revenge, since he knows he doesn't stand a chance anyway. Also, if the US is to take Sadam down they'll have to take Baghdad, wich is pretty much one big human shield, exept that this one is not composed of volunteers (those who would volunteer should get a clue).

[emprworm]

First, if Sadam could be disposed with as little bloodshed as the Pentagon would claim I'd be supporting the war. I agree with you that some of those anti war protesters out there need to wake up and see what Sadams regime is truly about. But, in a worst case scenario, Sadam would use chemical weapons (not missiles, but grenades and other sutff) against Kurds and Shiietes for no other reason then revenge, since he knows he doesn't stand a chance anyway. Also, if the US is to take Sadam down they'll have to take Baghdad, wich is pretty much one big human shield, exept that this one is not composed of volunteers (those who would volunteer should get a clue).

yay! you read the article. but nothing for me to read? I will keep my promise if you have something.

I though, for the most part, AFghanistan had mimimum civillian casualties for all it accomplished. I hope....I really do, that bombs do not destroy bagdad the city...there are a lot of innocent people there...but only the military installations there (if any).

[Anathema]

Yes, but Afghanistan was pretty much one big outskirt with no thick urban areas, so of course there wouldn't be many civilian casualties.

And about Baghdad, the problem is, Sadam isn't going to put signs on rooftops to mark the locations of military warehouses.

[Nyarlathotep]

Good article, honest.

Like I stated before, I do agree that something needs to be done about Saddam, there can be no question about it period (as far as I'm concerned).

In regards to our conversation in the anti war protestors thread, I already said I have (unfortunately, or fortunately, which ever way you look at it) no proof that those people can leave the country.

And I think those who were signing up to serve as a shield should have their heads examined. If there's anything else you want me to agree on (in realation to the article) let me know and I just might :)

[emprworm]

well i am impressed that neither of you asked me to read an article to return the favor, yet you both read mine. very honorable. the promise is still good, however, so if you come up with an article you want me to read (within reasonable length please not a 100 page dissertation :) ), i will read it, no matter what kind of view point it has.

[SurlyPIG]

Good article, honest.

Like I stated before, I do agree that something needs to be done about Saddam, there can be no question about it period (as far as I'm concerned).

But what is that something?

Seriously, I'm not trying to cause trouble. I've not heard a single person against war that offers a viable alternative.

Diplomacy has been suggested but it's been tried for decades and hasn't worked.

Sanctions and other economic punishments have been suggested and employed, but now the ones who implemented such actions are being accused of starving Iraqi citizens because Hussein steals from his citizens, no matter how much or how little they have.

I would love to be corrected, but I honestly don't think that there's a way to avoid the apparent fact that no war = saddam and war = no saddam.

[TMA_1]

That is pretty sick, as I ahve said before, some of the protesters are just little kids who have no idea how the world works. They think that this world is just and fair, far from it.

America uses slave labor outside of the country to make money, they take advantage of many natiosn for their own benefit. This global community is somewhat of a sham. It will only place the bottom more underneath the power of the top. That said, I know what saddam has done to his own people. I realize that historically, there has been strife between muslim casts. Why fight something though that is none of our business? Many people of iraq are suffering, but why does that make us the righteous king to stop all evils of the world? I see many more problem areas of the world to take care of before Iraq if I even believed in global policing. In africa, thousands of christians are murdered by muslims all the time. Civil war, strife, discord, starvation, disease. They face more of a terror in this life than any iraqi. We absolutely never help them though. Look at what red china has done? they have tried to erradicate dozens of sects, the tibetens, the curds. I mean saddam is maybe 56 on the list of the "to do's" for fixing things. You know what though? I dont even believe its our business to fix things in this earth. It is like trying to dig for a treasure in fine sand. The more you dig, the more that floods back into the hole you just made. I am a pessimist, and believe this is the reality of the world system. Individually, we should always follow our moral, legal, and ethical strictures, remember though that a government is under a completely different ethical standard. This is all my opinion. I have been as civil and frank as I can be. I really dont wish for some slashing retort, but I do want a good response.

[Nyarlathotep]

But what is that something?

Seriously, I'm not trying to cause trouble. I've not heard a single person against war that offers a viable alternative.

Diplomacy has been suggested but it's been tried for decades and hasn't worked.

Sanctions and other economic punishments have been suggested and employed, but now the ones who implemented such actions are being accused of starving Iraqi citizens because Hussein steals from his citizens, no matter how much or how little they have.

I would love to be corrected, but I honestly don't think that there's a way to avoid the apparent fact that no war = saddam and war = no saddam.

ACE, you're not causing trouble, you ask a fair question.

The only thing that "something" is, may be by force. How ever, I don't think the current way is the right one. IMHO, the US is pushing things way to fast. Also read my reply in "what should we do?" about the interview I've been watching on TV. IMHO there are way to much things that don't add up about the way the US government is pushing the war and slandering others who tend to speak out their concerns.

[Timenn]

Don't forget that the voice you hear of the Iraqi's is the voice of Iraqi's who fled.

That's one group, a group who has left their home, who left their family, and who were able to flee (mostly richer people), and who had a reason to flee.

In other words, they don't have anything to lose anymore around their homes. So if that gets destroyed (what is a chance, if there will come a war. You can't deny that a war will kill innocents) it is for them a smaller lose, because they already left it and who built up a community somewhere else, then people who still live there.

[Caid Ivik]

Yes, but Afghanistan was pretty much one big outskirt with no thick urban areas, so of course there wouldn't be many civilian casualties.

And about Baghdad, the problem is, Sadam isn't going to put signs on rooftops to mark the locations of military warehouses.

Hm, Bagdad has wide streets. Old feudal style for army presentations. Look on for example Wien, parts built after 1849. Brutal man to man fight is impossible. There is more place to maneuver and less chance of bad hit. But whatever, when no Iraqi has courage to kill Saddam before... Altough I accept it isn't easy.[attachment archived by Gobalopper]