TOPICS:
APR 26, 2006 12:03 PM
Coliwali
I'm lost
February 2003
APR 26, 2006 12:17 PM
ashtraymonument said:
Coliwali said:
Nokturn said:
I think it may be more accurate to say that reports of rape, murder and assault against women are now more widespread.
Those who suffered this under Saddam would probably have had their whole families raped, murdered or assaulted if they had kicked up a fuss. Probably by a member of Saddam's family.
Statistics tend to go up in democracies (or messes mascarading as democracies) due to the increase in reports rather than crimes.
Also, the fact is that a lot of people in this world don't want democracy. Its something the West often finds hard to understand.
Having said that, itis a fucking mess, isn't it? 
[Edited on Apr 26, 2006 4:50PM]
I think the basic problem is that under Saddam people had an out. Largely, they wouldnt tortured, kidnapped, raped or murdered if they didnt kick up a fuss. Yes, that is a horrible situation to live under. But it was stable. Now, any of that horrible stuff could happen if they just go outside.
Out forces have not been providing adequate safety and security. This is the most basic function of government. We are not fulfilling it. Its understandable to think why the Iraqis might want someone who does. Some Iraqis think Saddam provided it. If that is the case, why wouldnt they think he was preferable?
It is a mess isn't it?
Have you actually seen the mass graves that Saddam produced? I think that it is a little rediculous to say that if I'm a kurd and my best friends entire family is wiped out that I should just quiet down so I don't get killed too. Where is your freedom from oppresion spirit? Have you been to the palestinian neighborhoods south of Sadr? Who used to fear death squads (provided by the government) and now only worry about the sewage backup in their main market area. I'm currently in Baghdad, east side of the Nahr Dishal(tigris). I've spent five months on the ground(including the elections. You should have seen how people were so proud of their blue thumbs) including over one hundred and fifty missions in the Mullhalahs, I see your opinion(you are intitled to it) as misguided and lacking first hand expierience.
Example: If you ask someone from the U.S. who is in the middle-upper class and higher about the current adiminstration, I'm sure that most would think everything there in the U.S is absolutely fine too. Which I'm sure we are able to say that major social change needs to happen.
The point is this, yes security can be better. Yes there are lots of people coming in from neighboring countries who like to see the government turn fundamentalist. But people are not dying in droves. Mass murder is not occuring. Iraqi forces are doing more and more patroling without the help of the U.S.
Also, under Saddam's government most girls went to school until they were twelve. Boys until they were sixteen. I was just by Baghdad University a couple days ago and I saw plenty of females students in western attire.
Incidents of acid maiming, or any other horrible act taking place over there, is something which can be measured fairly objectively. Our subjective opinions dont count for much when trying to answer is there more or less lawlessness? Its purely a question of fact. If you wish to prove there is less chaos in Iraq you need to do so with hard numbers.
Now, when I say that people are better able to handle systemic violence as opposed to random violence, that is my subjective opinion, and you are free to try and discredit it.
Now, the voting and education of girls are both excellent things. One would be amiss to suggest only bad things have happened as a result of Saddams removal. Still the fact remains, the government of Iraq is unable to reliably protect its citizenry from violent reactionaries. Any government unable to fulfill that basic function will suffer under a cloud of illegitimacy.
Coliwali
I'm lost
February 2003
APR 26, 2006 12:23 PM
APR 26, 2006 12:40 PM
APR 26, 2006 07:46 PM
APR 26, 2006 10:27 PM
APR 26, 2006 10:45 PM
bean said:
FearTheReaper said:
Fair enough. From now on I will only use unbiased news sources. Like the New York Times. Solid, trustworthy, respected news sources.
*sigh* Look. I know as well as you that all news outlets have been responsible for some amount of bad journalism, but I don't think it's too much to ask that if you want people to believe your stories, you not base them off of one newspaper that is, quite literally, a joke founded by the Moonie Church, and another which has published myriad stories that have been obvious sensationalism and which routinely makes things in Iraq out to be far worse even than they actually are.
In any case, go ahead and use whatever sources you like. I don't care. If those sources have a credibility problem, someone will let you know. And if they really are reputable sources, someone should be able to back them up.
By the way, the New York Times doesn't actually make a good strawman. In it's 150+ year history, it has had only a handful of controversies, and their recent lapses have been acknowledged by the paper and corrected. Somehow, your sarcastic jab at them kind of falls limp.
In a related story, I actually work for the Moonies at their University here in Korea. 
APR 27, 2006 01:30 AM
Oh, lovely. Acid throwing--not just for the Afghani Taliban anymore, apparently. 
[Edited on Apr 27, 2006 by Necia]
bean
STAFF
Los Angeles, CA
APR 26, 2006 12:01 PM