Marc Perkel Rantz

WHAT? NO! The people who are part of the insurgency movement (al Sadr, et al) are people who were heavily persecuted by Saddam Hussein's reign. Were it not for the insurgency movement (and people like al Zarqawi), Iraq wouldn't be the quagmire it's become.

Understand that the people who you'd tout now as "freedom fighters" under the coalition occupation/interim government are the same people who were being incarcerated, executed and dissapeared when Saddam was in control.

Oh?

Ya mean that Saddam was fighting the same "terrorists" that we are now fighting?

Gee.

This Bushit policy sure seems to have all the flavor of a drunk's delusion. Lord knows what will happen on Duhhhbya's next bender.

Agreed, the insurgency hated Saddam more than bush did. But there are a lot of factors when thinking about why the insurgency movement is having such a great impact on citizens there.

I was going to go on a rant about how WE helped Iraq become the perfect breeding ground for al-Queda. How OUR exclusion of Iraqi contractors and employees from the reconstruction process has lead to a 40 percent unemployment rate; and how this in-turn has lead to citizens desperate attempts to get money from looting, selling kidnapees to terrorist organizations, and working for such terrorist organizations. How WE have helped create the backdrop for a brewing civil war between Shi'ites and Sunnis. Finally, how lack of an exit plan by US has created this whole quagmire.

Instead, I am going to just post foreign news sources. Also, notice that none of the things I mentioned are because of our valiant Troops, it has been their administration that has sold them out.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,251,00.html
http://www.wnmideast.com/

Make no bones about it, bin laden helped to start the extremist movement, and we have become his biggest ally and helped to further his agenda.

Note: I am not equating bin Laden and Saddam, nor al-queda and Iraq. All 4 things/people are seperate things.

If Saddam is elected, he will be in the same pickle as John Kerry will be - cleaning up an incredeible mess that George Bush created. Saddam will have to rebuild the water, sewer, and electric systems and restore the oil infrastructure. If Saddam thinks that he can do all of that (again), he is a brave man indeed.

Jay, Saddam wasn't fighting the "terrorists" (if by "terrorists" you mean the insurgency), he was persecuting them. The situation in Iraq now is similar to when the USSR dissolved or when the British Empire withdrew from India and the Middle East. Old rivalries kept in check by an oppressive government are flowering again. In this case, those in the insurgency don't want us there either and feel that they'll have no power in a new US-friendly Iraq.

Al Zarqawi, et al, however, are opportunists, taking advantage of the chaos. They don't want peace. They're trying to foster civil war. All they want is for Iraq to become a breeding ground for terrorism.

Brenda, the utilities you mentioned are in the process of being rebuilt by coalition members and the Iraqi people. They're being hampered by attacks and kidnappings by insurgents and al Zarqawi's network.

M. Wills, you bring up a lot of good points. I haven't read the articles you linked to. I'm off to a class in a few minutes, but I'll read them when I get back.

If we put Saddam on the ballot and he wins, should we quietly go away and leave him govern his country? And if so, my next question is if Bush wins the election will you quietly go away and let him govern this country? For all the talk that we do about whether the Iraqi people were better under Saddam's rule or now is totally subjective. None of you know the life of an Iraqi, then or now.

tomocius, I thought about saying something along the the same line before (re: Bush), but only after I shut my computer down.

I dunno, MadBlue. I don't see much difference in persecuting them from Saddam and fighting them from us. Other than the fact that we are killing them with much greater efficiency than Saddam ever could in his hay-day.

Oh....and we are also losing quite a few of our own in the deal now, with the whole situation over there rapidly turning into shit. Even some die-hard Republicans are starting to call this little detour from the war on terrorism an utter disaster.

Somebody tell me what the rationale for the war is this week.

Saddam and the Baath party were doing a great job
managing the complex Iraqis as a people and infrastructure. You cannot walk into a complex muslim nation of 22 odd million and dictate how they should live, the very idea was pretty stupid from the start. Now the US must realize, albeit too late, how unintelligent they were to disrupt and destroy a society they just did not understand. The lesson here is don't stick your nose where it doesn't belong... (particularly if you have a very good track record of making a mess)

Jay, my point is that since the people in the insurgency are Shiites and were persecuted for their socio-religious views under Saddam's reign, they would definitely *not* vote for Saddam if his name was on the ballot.

As far as "efficiency in killing them" goes, Saddam was a dictator. As a dictator it's much more practical to imprison/execute/disappear a few notable Shiite figures as an example to the rest than to try to round up and kill 60% of the population. What do you think your country's GDP would look like if you cut your workforce by 60%?

Interestingly enough (but not bloody likely):
http://www.zaman.org/?bl=international&alt=&trh=20040921&hn=12424

"What do you think your country's GDP would look like if you cut your workforce by 60%?"

And there is the rub. Basically, nobody in this country, from the president to you or I, gives a rat's ass about Iraq, their economy, or their people. That leaves two options for implementing an unwanted occupation....dig in and defend our forces from continued attacks by Iraqis to get us out, or devastate their country to a point where resistance is marginal.

The first significantly drains our own much needed resources and wastes the lives of thousands of young men, the second destroys what it means to be America.

We sometimes have the idea that the Iraqis should be grateful because 'at least Saddam is gone', but it is not the case that anything would have been better than a dictator. After all...as much as I despise Bush, there are worse things that could happen to our own country. Even I would support the moron over some puppet propped up by an invader nation.

Huh? I was talking about the reason why Saddam didn't kill off everyone who opposed him.

For the record, though, the insurgency doesn't encompass 60% of the Iraqi people. Not every Shiite, or even a significant percentage of the Shiite population, is in the insurgency.

For the majority of Iraqis who are outraged over the coalition or the interim government, they'll be making their voices known at the voting booth. Ironically, the insurgency, who would have the most to win in a democratic Iraq, are the ones threatening the stability that would allow them to vote.

Take a moment and ponder just who it is who will allow who to vote in Iraq.

If this is what we are calling "democracy" for the Iraqis, it is no small wonder that they see little difference between pre and post Saddam.

Except, of course, tens of thousands of civilian dead by our military and cities reduced to rubble.

Take a moment and ponder just WHY it might not be possible to vote in some areas of Iraq. Not everything has a conspiracy behind it.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040927/ap_on_re_mi_ea/un_iraq_1

No conspiracy theories from me. The reason is simple. War. Who brought the war? Why was it brought?

Further pondering brings to mind just who is conducting this selective voting ritual in Iraq and who is putting up those running for leadership in Iraq.

The Iraqis have no need for conspiracy theories. They know who controls their nation, and they don't like it one damn bit. Why, of all things, they actually are putting up armed resistance.

Not too suprising...though it seems a bit hard for us to comprehend somehow. I think many are still waiting for those flowers to be showered upon our troops.

The insurgents are "conducting the selective voting ritual". It wouldn't be "selective" if they weren't making it dangerous to be out on the street in some areas. It's not a point of people not being allowed to vote if they're opposed to the occupation. It's a point of not being able to manage to tally a vote in areas where insurgents will bomb voting centers and threaten anyone who goes to the polls.

you dirty muther fuckers have no clue about whats happening over there. none of your loyalist readers have the intestinal fortitude to even serve let alone fight. take it from a cavalry trooper thet you are all so wrong theat you have no idea. but i have one...GET OUT OF MY AMERICA YOU FAGS. and go to iraq see for your self. your tune will change. idiots.