Anger Grows on Iraqi Governing Council

Yahoo! News ^ | April 9, 2004 | AP

[nonomous]

We need to be thinking about nuclear bombs in Iran, folks. If you find this little Iranian putsch frustrating, think about what costs a blackmailer can charge when he has nuclear bombs.

Who is paying for this silly madhi army? Iran.

Think about who is watching our reactions. The media won't look past its nose, but we can.

[oceanview]

Iran would essentially take over the country, except for the Kurdish area, if we walked out now.

Its a very tough situation. We cannot unleash the full brunt of the military force we know we have. The large majority of the Shia are still with us (Sistani, et al), but if we have some kind of mass civilian casualty collateral damage, that could change. We might be able to get away with this in Fallujah, since its Sunni, but not in the other locations.

If "regular Shia" start joining up with the Sadr forces en masse, its over, we've lost the war. I really think its that simple, if we don't keep 95+% of the Shia neutral or tilting towards the US, we're done. We can't start slaughtering these people that we liberated by the thousands. I think that's why we see some hedging; some attempts to diffuse this, to contain it, to buy time and build up the iraqi defense and police forces to be able to provide at least some order by 6/30. If Iraq is only as bad as most American inner cities, that's will be more then good enough.

This whole thing is very precarious right now.

[Let's Roll]

This is exactly why the bad guys are making trouble. I expect the bad guys to start assassinating members of the Iraqi council any time now. They better decide right quick if they want their own country or not. What a bunch of wimps.

[JasonC]

Guess we will just have to keep it ourselves then, slaughter anybody who looks at us funny, and keep all the oil. What a tragedy that will be, and how much it will hurt - somebody else.

[Attila1212]

Now they resigning one by one and on the end of Juni noone will be there to whom hand over the power.

That will be their loss not ours.

OK..It sounds quite confident

But what if the 22 million Iraqi figures out that on the end it was not "liberation" after all , and noone cares about them?

I understand that the arabs are not everybody's cup of tee, but the reality is that they are a bit buffled:

No WMD, and Saddam is in safe hands now, the democracy is presented to them by 25 impotent dissidents, the Baathist army of 400.000 was fired with no salaries, but they keept their guns, and so on.

 

[Porterville]

Give the nation to the Turks.

[Attila1212]

...slaughter anybody who looks at us funny, and keep all the oil....

Sounds simple. But how far would that take you?

22 million Iraqi already start looking funny at bombing the mosks...That is a lot of slaughter to do...and that may cost you some of the weaker stomacked allies...and I am not sure that the american public would be happy to take that slaughtering business.... mind, they wont reject the oil, for sure...

 

[Attila1212]

....Give the nation to the Turks....

That would unify the Kurds... and the Turks do not want that. That would create a big mess.

[Dr. Frank fan]

OK..It sounds quite confident

I am not "confident" about much except that there will be instability, and US military, in Iraq for quite some time.

But what if the 22 million Iraqi figures out that on the end it was not "liberation" after all , and noone cares about them?

Excuse me. I am not sure I quite understand your scenario. You are saying, I think, that: suppose the following happens....

1) one by one, all members of the IGC resign, out of anger at the fact that the US military actually has the gall to combat murderers and thugs.

2) no one remains in Iraq who is willing to serve on the IGC, because (presumably) no one in Iraq thinks it's ok for the US military to combat murderers and thugs. (All Iraqis are in favor of murderers and thugs going on rampages without being opposed.)

3) all 22 million of these (murderer-supporting) Iraqis "figure out it was not a liberation" and get mad at us as a result.

That is your scenario?

Because, to me it is self-contradictory.

If what you say is true, that it's possible for the entire population of Iraq to get angry at the military for fighting murderers and thugs, then, I claim: the people of Iraq DO NOT WANT "liberation" in the first place. So why would they get mad at us for them not being liberated? For that matter, what would be the difference between their non-liberation under us, and their non-liberation under Mr. Sadr? (apart from the fact that the latter would be a thousand times more vicious.)

I am sorry to explain such basic concepts, but: People who want "liberation" do not get angry when rampaging thug murderers are opposed. In fact, people who want liberation would say, "Go get those damn thug murderers." They may not be able to physically help, but they would at least point and say "They're over there" and then get out of the way.

So if what you're saying is true then the Iraqi people do not actually want liberation at all. If what you're saying is true, they want autocracy.

I agree that that would be bad for us on a number of levels.

On the other hand, I do not believe what you're saying is true in the first place. So I shan't worry too much about it.

I understand that the arabs are not everybody's cup of tee

I don't understand what you mean. I like (and dislike) Arabs pretty much the same as I like (and dislike) other ethnic groups.

but the reality is that they are a bit buffled: No WMD,

Who, exactly, are you saying is baffled by no WMD? Are you saying that the Iraqi people in general are complaining that we didn't find WMD (and thus that we shouldn't have ousted Saddam)? I think I am not understanding you correctly.

the democracy is presented to them by 25 impotent dissidents

No it is not. The 25 impotent dissidents are an interim governing council. They were not democratically elected and nobody is pretending that they are. A provisional constitution has been written and the plan is for actual democratic elections after some time. What is the problem?

The only problem, in fact, is that this timetable and transition to democracy can be screwed up by one and only one thing: Iraqi thugs attacking the US military and forcing them to leave Iraq, so that Iraqi thugs can take over Iraq.

Is this what Iraqi people want? It will not be "Democracy" at all.

If it's not what Iraqi people want, they should help us fight the thugs. Either that or shut up about it.

the Baathist army of 400.000 was fired with no salaries, but they keept their guns, and so on.

I think many agree that the firing of the army was a mistake.

I don't know what that has to do with the fact that any Iraqi who would get "angry" at us FOR FIGHTING AGAINST KILLERS AND THUGS has messed up priorities. They either DO NOT WANT democracy, or if they do, they should either help us, or if not willing to help us for reasons of fear or whatever, they should SHUT. UP.

[JasonC]

Took us all the way to the Pacific. Ask an Indian. The United States strange to say did not conquer the world by being prancing ninnies. And we haven't spent the last 30 years kissing the hairy ass of a demented tyrant, who we just crushed like a bug. We are oh so scared of the gloriously free Iraqi people and their unity and valor, which has accomplished so much in history. They are so much more terrifying than the Wehrmacht was when we smashed it to rubble.

[MHGinTN]

BINGO!

[JasonC]

Idiots in fantasy-land...

[txrangerette]

The AP hates America. Can we trust
this article? I'm just asking...

[Publius6961]

"We have been asked by members of the Iraqi Governing Council to have the opportunity to enter into Fallujah to speak with leaders of Fallujah to address ways in which bloodshed could be minimized," U.S. coalition spokesman Dan Senor said.

I say let them go for it. If they go into Fallujah, they will either return or they won't. Either way they will know that we gave them a chance. IF nothing changes and the (probably foreign) killers are not handed over, then we will know that the sandmaggots should not have been on the council in the first place, as they are complicit in the sandmaggot thirst for senseless killing.

[Attila1212]

To make it sort, I think it was a mistake to alienate too many people... The Baathists - their number may have been higher than thought - find themself on the margin of the society with absolutly no hope, no jobs, and subjects of wichhunts. So they automaticly become "thugs" together with the fired army. Not by their choice but by being appointed... Already organized and desperate, no altenative given. For them is jail or starvation. And on the top of it, it looks like the old regim was not that unpopular as the dissident Iraqis advertised before the war.
One should not forget that before the first Gulf war Iraq had one of the best social system, free healthcare and so on, and during the sangtions almost everyone blamed the US for the food and medicin shortages.

Regarding the WMD-s, before the war probably even many of the Iraqis belived that Saddam had WMD-s. Then they get the news that the whole thing was made up by Chalabi,( who told the BBC that his family was rulig Iraq for generations and he is the true leader...) not big suprise that they blame him for all the bombing and suffering.

....what would be the difference between their non-liberation under us, and their non-liberation under Mr. Sadr? (apart from the fact that the latter would be a thousand times more vicious.) ......

Mr Sadr. gained support by organizing aid for the poorest people in Iraq. His father was killed by Saddam and that also give him a status. And because the religion was on tight rope under Saddam, it become attractive now in the "free" Iraq. And the US is seen as the enemy of islam, that would make all the difference.

.....So if what you're saying is true then the Iraqi people do not actually want liberation at all. If what you're saying is true, they want autocracy. .....

Something like that...
Liberty and demokracy have to come from inside and you can not force it down in everybody's throat. Especially not if you doing it after 12 years of sangtions and a bloody war, and the US has a serious image problem in the middle east.

.......or if not willing to help us for reasons of fear or whatever, they should SHUT. UP......

Do not forget it was not THEM who invited the US to go there to fight...

Then the new police force is expected to shot the old police force... probably their cusins... And they are expected to shot the radical islamists too...
Then the Iraqis find themself shoting at each other...

And slowly developing nostalgy.....

[Dr. Frank fan]

I think it was a mistake to alienate too many people...

Is it possible you're overestimating the number of people who have been "alienated"? Remember that people who stay at home instead of grabbing a gun are not very visible to us. Remember also that many of these people who are grabbing a gun and shooting at our troops, HATED US ALREADY and thus were going to attack sooner or later. (So, we didn't "alienate" them; they ALREADY HATED US. "Alienate" implies a separation from a former state of friendliness.)

The Baathists - their number may have been higher than thought - find themself on the margin of the society with absolutly no hope, no jobs, and subjects of wichhunts

Baathists (who are supposedly "secular" and Sunni-dominated) will be even more the subject of witchhunts if a Shiite theocracy is allowed to take over the country and the US withdraws. Baathists were the big persecutors of Shiites. Therefore, any former Baathists who want a reasonable future, should support the US against the Shiite thug insurgents. If they don't, I reserve the right to conclude that they either do not care about their freedom or that they wish to get back to autocratic power themselves - in either case, I see no reason why I should respect them all that much.

So they automaticly become "thugs" together with the fired army.

Nobody "automatically becomes" a thug. Attacking other people makes one a thug. If they didn't do that, I wouldn't call them thugs. There may be some former-Baathists who aren't doing that, and therefore, I am not calling them thugs.

Already organized and desperate, no altenative given. For them is jail or starvation.

Here's the alternative I give them: stay the hell home and stop attacking the coalition.

I agree that it would be good to create economic opportunities to avoid starvation (which I don't for one second believe is a real problem yet). However, joining with a gang of thugs and turning insurgent does not create very many viable economic opportunities. (Except if their eventual success allows them to plunder and then exploit the country - which we should not allow.)

And on the top of it, it looks like the old regim was not that unpopular as the dissident Iraqis advertised before the war.

I don't agree with that. Where do you get that?

Not that I ever cared all that much how "popular" Saddam was with Iraqians, in the first place. (We didn't oust him because Iraqians didn't like him but because WE didn't like him. It's important to remember that Iraqians' opinions, while interesting, were not the determining factor in what we did.)

One should not forget that before the first Gulf war Iraq had one of the best social system, free healthcare and so on, and during the sangtions almost everyone blamed the US for the food and medicin shortages.

Well, if so, they should have blamed Saddam for invading Kuwait.

[WMD] Then they get the news that the whole thing was made up by Chalabi

I don't believe for one second the whole thing was made up by Chalabi. You could be right that this is what many Iraqians now believe, but that doesn't make it true.

not big suprise that they blame him for all the bombing and suffering.

Ok, so your point is that lots of Iraqians blame Ahmed Chalabi for all the bombing and suffering. Well, you could be right; I don't know. I don't know what the relevance of that is to anything.

Mr Sadr. gained support by organizing aid for the poorest people in Iraq. [...] And the US is seen as the enemy of islam, that would make all the difference.

This all makes a certain amount of sense but none of it adds up to anything I should care about. The people attracted to Sadr are being rallied to a losing cause, and should abandon that cause; they may well wind up getting killed for it. And the idea that the US is "the enemy of islam" is ridiculous and anyone who has this idea should grow the hell up.

Anything else?

Liberty and demokracy have to come from inside and you can not force it down in everybody's throat.

But there ARE people inside Iraq who would like liberty and democracy and (therefore) we would not be forcing it down their throats. What you seem to be saying is that there aren't any such people. If so, I disagree with you, and wonder why you have that opinion. Why are you only paying attention to the killers & rioters, and nobody else?

Do not forget it was not THEM who invited the US to go there to fight...

You are WRONG. We didn't invade Iraq because this or that group of Iraqians "invited" us. They (some) may have invited us but that was NOT the reason we did it. Get that straight.

We did it for reasons of our national self-interest.

Then the new police force is expected to shot the old police force... probably their cusins... And they are expected to shot the radical islamists too... Then the Iraqis find themself shoting at each other...

Yes, that is correct. Iraqians who want a free and prosperous future are expected, by me, to shoot at Iraqians (and, foreign infiltrators) who do not and are fomenting violence to grab power.

What is wrong with that? I expect the same thing of Americans.