ForumGarden

What Iraq needs is strong independent secular personal leadership with an effective command of both the military and the police. Which is, if I remember, exactly what Iraq had before Western armed forces occupied the country, judicially exterminated the family of the head of state and deliberately dismantled the military and police structures.

Don't blame the West? Why the hell not, events like this are entirely a consequence of the occupation.

At least 37 people have been killed after Iraqi security forces stormed a Catholic church in central Baghdad to free dozens of hostages being held by gunmen there, security sources say. Twenty-five hostages were among the dead, along with seven members of the Iraqi security forces and at least five of the attackers, they told the BBC. About 100 people had been inside Our Lady of Salvation for an evening Mass.

BBC News - Baghdad church hostage drama ends in bloodbath

Yeah, whatever...

Though I'm with you on the concept that Iraq should not have been afflicted with the USA brand of salvation, what would be your comparison point for saying this couldn't have happened if Saddam was still in power?

spot;1341946 wrote: What Iraq needs is strong independent secular personal leadership with an effective command of both the military and the police. Which is, if I remember, exactly what Iraq had before Western armed forces occupied the country, judicially exterminated the family of the head of state and deliberately dismantled the military and police structures.

Don't blame the West? Why the hell not, events like this are entirely a consequence of the occupation.

At least 37 people have been killed after Iraqi security forces stormed a Catholic church in central Baghdad to free dozens of hostages being held by gunmen there, security sources say. Twenty-five hostages were among the dead, along with seven members of the Iraqi security forces and at least five of the attackers, they told the BBC. About 100 people had been inside Our Lady of Salvation for an evening Mass.

BBC News - Baghdad church hostage drama ends in bloodbath




The United States is responsible for both blunders. One for helping to put Saddam into power and the horrors that followed afterwards. And two, for the mess we're in now and all of the misery that has accompanied that as well.

What did we expect when we meddle in the affairs of other nations but we completely neglect our own? And what of the American people? We who are powerless to stop our handlers? We're not talking about a government that carries muskets around anymore. We're talking about a government that has tanks, helicopters, air superiority, and every other tool under the Sun. Even if we wanted to rebel against our own government, we would not be successful in the way that downtrodden citizens have been throughout history. Times are very different now. There is absolutely nothing we can do. Which is why I believe that God is going to have the answer for us all. And very soon, because time is running short. Our country is a mere skeleton of what it once was.

Just because one wrong is happening it doesn't mean that no wrong would have still taken place.

flopstock;1341954 wrote: Yeah, whatever...You're suggesting that you simply don't care about the conditions Iraqis have to live under? I thought the pretence of the American Public was that they welcomed the US intervention because it was all going to be bliss and apple pie over there once the devil Saddam was dead. Wasn't that your reason for cheering? And for the robotic Hurrah when he was handed over to his enemies to be hanged?



koan;1341963 wrote: Though I'm with you on the concept that Iraq should not have been afflicted with the USA brand of salvation, what would be your comparison point for saying this couldn't have happened if Saddam was still in power?


It's there, in the tail of the article:There are about half a million Christians from ancient denominations in Iraq. Iraqi Christians have been leaving the country in droves since the US-led invasion in 2003. My comparison was with Iraq before the occupation, not with some hypothetical what-if state. It was a secular country where women got an education and worked, and where Christian Arabs went to church safe in the knowledge that their priest wasn't about to be shot at his altar.

The lesson I'd take from the whole Saddam fiasco is that IF you are going to interfere, FOLLOW THROUGH. Half measures are worse than no measures at all.

Truthbringer: And perhaps oddly, I don't think America is in as bad a state as you feel. You are still very big, very rich, with the highest technology and the best and richest Universities in the world. Your capacity for innovation is undimmed and your ability to spot a moneymaking opportunity as sharp as ever. Wasn't Facebook set up by a young American lad?

I think you'll be ok.

spot;1341985 wrote: You're suggesting that you simply don't care about the conditions Iraqis have to live under? I thought the pretence of the American Public was that they welcomed the US intervention because it was all going to be bliss and apple pie over there once the devil Saddam was dead. Wasn't that your reason for cheering? And for the robotic Hurrah when he was handed over to his enemies to be hanged?





It's there, in the tail of the article:There are about half a million Christians from ancient denominations in Iraq. Iraqi Christians have been leaving the country in droves since the US-led invasion in 2003. My comparison was with Iraq before the occupation, not with some hypothetical what-if state. It was a secular country where women got an education and worked, and where Christian Arabs went to church safe in the knowledge that their priest wasn't about to be shot at his altar.


No, I'm suggesting you just get a tattoo and save the keystrokes.

flopstock;1341994 wrote: No, I'm suggesting you just get a tattoo and save the keystrokes.
The event happened less than 24 hours ago, flopster. "37 people have been killed after Iraqi security forces stormed a Catholic church in central Baghdad", the event started during Sunday worship. Yesterday. Why on earth are Americans so congenitally incapable of accepting responsibility for their actions? When did you-floppy last apologize for this continuing and unnecessary bloodbath you-all unleashed? Why on earth do you not think this is news?

spot;1341985 wrote:

It's there, in the tail of the article:There are about half a million Christians from ancient denominations in Iraq. Iraqi Christians have been leaving the country in droves since the US-led invasion in 2003. My comparison was with Iraq before the occupation, not with some hypothetical what-if state. It was a secular country where women got an education and worked, and where Christian Arabs went to church safe in the knowledge that their priest wasn't about to be shot at his altar.
It's also in the article that the attack was a response to Egypt, not US occupation:

The statement reportedly said Iraqi Christians would be "exterminated" if Muslim women in Egypt were not freed. It specifically mentioned two women in Egypt who radicals believe are being held against their will after converting to Islam.

Perhaps there are other stories that illustrate why Christians are specifically endangered by the occupation but this doesn't seem to be one of them.

The circumstance in which the attack became possible was the condition of Iraq under occupation. The previous state of Iraq, that of a Ba'athist government headed by Saddam Hussein, was one in which such attacks couldn't and didn't happen. What happened this week would never would have happened under Saddam. The Bush Administration chose, for their own unjustifiable reasons, to remove him, to the utter detriment of the people who actually have to live there.

I think you'd make your point more irrefutable with articles such as this: Iraqis Endure Worse Conditions Than Under Saddam, UN Survey Finds - The NewStandard

Ziegler drew harsh criticism from US officials in March when he told the UN Commission on Human Rights that child malnutrition rates in Iraq had nearly doubled since 2003. Ziegler said the rise was "a result of the war led by coalition forces."

There aren't a lot of people who will believe hostage taking and terrorism is a new thing in the middle east. Even if it is, it's not as impressive as the reduction in daily living conditions. If you establish that the health and life expectancy of the average civilian has deteriorated then it erases the preconception that they all lived like rabid dogs before the invasion.

spot;1341995 wrote: The event happened less than 24 hours ago, flopster. "37 people have been killed after Iraqi security forces stormed a Catholic church in central Baghdad", the event started during Sunday worship. Yesterday. Why on earth are Americans so congenitally incapable of accepting responsibility for their actions? When did you-floppy last apologize for this continuing and unnecessary bloodbath you-all unleashed? Why on earth do you not think this is news?


Not all Americans think that way. As for the West doing all this, it was primarily Bush and Co.

Also Bush lost the popular vote, and was installed by the courts. "We" didn't vote him in office. Then in 2004 democrats were unenthusiastic about taking over the controls in the middle of two wars that had become a giant mess. You had also suggested we should have voted for McCain in the last election cycle in 2008. That was the same notion I think that played out in 2004.

You probably have about as much say in our political process as the average American does anymore.

yaaarrrgg;1342126 wrote: You probably have about as much say in our political process as the average American does anymore.That, I think, is about to get a whole lot more so. My next thread's going to announce the creation of a new US political party and it's going to rock. I might not be able to stand but I reckon I can push.

After everything Obama has accomplished for working family's only to see how more and more people vote republican to win the House confuses me to no end.

What's horribly ironic is the fact that this "new party" is entirely the result of a single party which refuses to change their state of ignorance even after all of the evidence points in favor of complete stupidity.

Why? Because republicans have undoubtedly succeeded in convincing these "people" that they speak on behalf of "god". They've created a sense of religious sentiment which has strangled "american" politics. It's the classic reverse psychology that makes people feel "wrong" to go against ANYONE that claims to be of the same denomination. It's business all at the expense of those ignorant enough to think religion is a collective agreement to remain united, the sad part of it being the pure, and simple in my mind, fact that religion can only exist when one side alienates another and it's no doubt obvious who that side has been, let alone "become"

Who but a rightfully "god" fearing "man" could go against the dream to invade a country simply because it "seemed" a good idea? Bombs?

...

Where?