Baghdad Burning

[Brad]

How would 'giving in' to islamic extremists be bad if it saves lives?



But that's besides the point. The majority of Iraqi's view America as an occupying force, not a 'liberating' one. That's a fact. They want the US out. And since when do we have the right to decide for them the future of their country?



The UN is far better suited to oversee the rebuilding of Iraq.

[broken4ubyu]

But then the UN would just be seen as occupiers. And how do they have any right to decide the future of the country either?

[Brad]

You're missing the point. The UN wouldn't be occupying the country. They never invaded it in the first place. They wouldn't be 'deciding the future' of Iraq because they wouldn't be so preoccupied trying to set up a puppet government. They would simply be keeping the peace and rebuilding infrastructure (while the US handles the tab, I'd expect). If anything, the UN would be present only to keep people from squealing bloody murder if the US pulls out. The Iraqis all seem to think they're ready for independence anyway.

[broken4ubyu]

So if the UN was there they would let extremists thugs like Al Sadre get in power and the entire thing collapse back into a saddam esque dictatorship

[Tree Fingers]

[four]

No. No. No. No. No. The UN pecekeepers would work to establish a democratic form of government, just the same as we are claiming to. However seeing as the decisions would be made from numerous countries it could not be overly controlled to be a puppet government. And it would not be the job of the UN to decide the future of the country, they would establish a working democracy, keep the peace, and then pull out, allowing for elections and for the country to decide what it wishes to do for itself.

[Tree Fingers]

Originally posted by four@May 9 2004, 04:56 PM

No one in the world is going to say that Saddam was a good guy. But really, are we better? We are doing the same things he was doing, only under the mask of spreading democracy and freedom. The country is under martial law, civilians are killed every day, no one has any rights, the governing council has no power, and yet we are there to fight for freedom and democracy? Right. I agree that we need to stay there for a while to establish at least some basic form of government, however what we are doing now is just a full-fledged occupation and us setting up a puppet government, same thing we did in Cuba after the Spanish-American war, and look where that got us. And remember broken4ubyu this is written by an Iraqi, not by Brad.

It is war. In war, things like martial law are inevitable. It's only been a year. Revolutions take much longer. So, I find your points a bit misused.



The thing about protesting this war is why we are there in the first place. These things happen in war, but because this war has been viewed as a wrong move in the first place, these things are only easier to condemn and deface America. If I believe a war is just, then I believe civilian casualities shall be had, I believe torture shall be had, I believe martial law shall be had. That is war.



I don't believe this war is right, and it upsets me more that things like this are happening because this war isn't right. It hurts us.

[Tree Fingers]

[Tree Fingers]

[four]

[broken4ubyu]

Yes, some militants. But many of them would oppose ANY foreign or non-islamic funadamentalist interaction

[Brad]

The US would represent that majority of the UN occupants. It is occupation, oversight cannot be done without force.

I disagree. Peacekeepers are different than US troops. I'm guessing that the Iraqi people would indeed recognize the difference and appreciate it. Either way, a UN presence is far better than a US one at this point.

Yes, some militants. But many of them would oppose ANY foreign or non-islamic funadamentalist interaction

I'm more concerned about whether or not the majority of Iraqi people would view the UN favorably. If they did, then the militants would lose a lot of support, and public support is key in winning a guerrilla war.

[Tree Fingers]

[Brad]

There was a time when I would've agreed with you. But, judging from the opinions of many Iraqis interviewed, they seem to be very rational people. Personally I don't believe that the Iraqi population would be ferventely against the deployment of peacekeepers in Iraq, instead of US occupation. Naturally there would still be some extremists that would try and disrupt things, but I don't think that it would be as bad. Certainly the chances of seeing more Fallujahs appearing would be decreased.



Most of the insurgent attacks/kidnappings/propaganda is based upon the fact that the US is occupying Iraq. That is how they justify it. But take that reason away and they would be hard pressed to convince the Iraqi people of their righteousness.

[broken4ubyu]

notice that they usually say foreign occupiers, not americans. The extremists dont want ANY non muslim troops there

[Brad]

But their justification is it's the Americans that have invaded the country, trying to set up a puppet government, etc... which is true, essentially, so that's why they are supported by regular Iraqis.



They are uniting against AMERICANS, which is something we should try to change. Have them unite under a legitimate government instead, perhaps?

[broken4ubyu]

But even if there arent americans there then theyll say that is is still a holy war because there is troops of non muslim countries there.

[Brad]

Yeah. People are gonna continue to die, no matter what. But nobody will want to just pull all troops out anyway, so that's not an option. What I'm talking about is the minimization of death. We won't be able to end the anti-western sentiment no matter what, the US ensured the impossibility of that decades ago.

[Tree Fingers]

[broken4ubyu]

Brad, strong anti-western sentiment existed loooooong before the US even came to be. It wasnt us who created it.