View Full Version : Blasts in Iraq
March 18, 2004, 12:57 PM
In the recent months we have seen more and more atrocities committed against the Iraqis who collaborate with the CPA or the Americans. Then there were the Shiites who were killed mercilessly. Now the targets are anyone who is helping to build the economy and infrastructure in Iraq, according to CNN.
When the war began, I was somehow fooled by the Bush administration into thinking that it was not a war about oil. Members of this forum, namely Arnab and Fab, have quite rightly pointed out that oil was the primary concern and after some deligance I find that it was in fact true.
But I am still glad the war did take place. One reason being that if democracy is given a chance in Iraq and there is stability with the country I do envision the Iraqis achieving great things. But I am also glad for another reason. The post war Iraq has really brought to light the problem in the Muslim countries with extremism and fundamentalism, which I believe is a byproduct of the Islamic subculture of Wahabiism.
Wahabiism, believe it or not, has derived from the richest Muslims nations and have been exported to the poort impoverished countries as well as the western nations. One such way was through charitable donations. Donations from Saudi and Kuwait have been used to build moques and madrasas where the most puritanical form of Islam is preched and allowed to perpetuate.
I think it's time that Muslim countries, including Bangladesh step up, condem the frequent attacks and help in the rebulding effort in Iraq. Reservations about working with the CPA is not a good enough reason not to help in the rebuilding efforts.
[Edited on 18-3-2004 by Ockey]
March 18, 2004, 02:07 PM
I think it's time that Muslim countries, including Bangladesh step up, condem the frequent attacks and help in the rebulding effort in Iraq
I agree. Whatever, the moral sin of going to war in Iraq, it is time to get UN back in and the US out. More importantly, the muslims should start taking responsibility to distinguish good from bad and do something constructive, like support democracy in Iraq.
This includes euro fence sitters. I am sick of hearing excuses such as the bomb blasts in Spain were caused by the spanish themselves because they supported Bush's war. I am especially appalled by these so-called anti war activists who cannot see reality in Iraq which does'nt necessarily have to fit a leftist persepective..
March 18, 2004, 05:36 PM
I don't think the reasons for going to war was solely for oil. It was that and a number of things, OTHER than WMD and security threat to the USA/UK.
By saying that the you are glad that the war took place, you are basically endorsing "the end justifies the means". Don't a lot of terrorists use that excuse too?
I don't think anyone denies that Saddam is a ratface who needed to go. The Iraqis are certainly better off without him (although some leftists might deny this). And yes the UN sanctions weren't exactly working, but yes the UN security council was also in the process of trying other means.
Anyways, my opinion is that a country should NOT be allowed to invade another country without UN backing. Think of it in this way, Pakistan is churning out fundamentalists like smoke from a 19th century factory, it has WMDs, it is a major security threat to India, it even has a military dictator and a past history of genocide. Would you agree if the Indians woke up one day, pulled out some red herring and sought to 'liberate' them WITHOUT the backing of the UN? Do you think if any country does try this trick that he US, as leaders of the world, should have a say in the matter?
Also, don't you find it disgusting how the Bush administration & friends kicked the UN in the a$$ and is now crawling back to them on all fours? Ugh.
If anyone people need liberating they are the mighty 'friends of the West' Saudis:
Article 1 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3517386.stm)
Article 2 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3517386.stm)
Otherwise I do agree with you, yes moderate Islamic countries like (cough) Bangladesh should put pressure on them. But as if we're gonna bite the hand that feeds us.. :)
oracle, how right you are.. this war has shamefully exposed leftist hypocrisy.
March 19, 2004, 01:35 PM
Not saying oil was the only reason but can be argued as being a primary concern.
As far as "the end justifies the means" is concerned...gave it a lot of thought and you have a point.
With regard to Saudis may also want to check out this report from NPR:
Link to NPR report (http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1777314)
By the way, the links to the two articles are one and the same.
March 20, 2004, 03:33 PM
Ockey, yes. "Democracy is given a chance" in Iraq. The problem is that's not how demoracy is established anywhere. People fight for the establishement of democracy themselves; an outside military power cannot stranglehold a people to accept democracy. That has never panned out.
You should be happy though, for different reasons, if you live in America, like I do. By looting Iraq's oil and controlling its resources, the Wall Street, the stockmarkets and the American economy are going to get a much needed boost. Sure, terrorism will happen frequently, but not in the US. It's mainly going to be in Iraq. Who cares if a few Iraqi civilians die in this process? I mean there are reports that around 5,000 innocent civilians have died since last April already. I don't see anyone caring about them. So, yes, keping an illusion of "democracy" in Iraq is absolutely necessary for the US economy to thrive again.
March 20, 2004, 06:33 PM
Who cares if a few Iraqi civilians die in this process? I mean there are reports that around 5,000 innocent civilians have died since last April already. I don't see anyone caring about them.
The point I was trying to make is that terrorism, extremism and fundamentalism are problems that are rampant in the Muslim world and the Muslims have never really dealt with it. Why arn't the Muslim nations reponding to the events in Iraq? Surely they care about thier "brothers" and "sisters" in Iraq more than the capitalists occupiers? When the Taleban took Afghanistan why were the people in the West only outraged with how women were being treated? Terrorism is rampant in Iraq and yet we don't see the Arab nations making any effort to stop Mujahiddins crossing over into Iraq. We also don't see much support from the Arab nations in the rebuilding effort.
The problem is that's not how demoracy is established anywhere. People fight for the establishement of democracy themselves; an outside military power cannot stranglehold a people to accept democracy. That has never panned out.
Didn't it work in Germany and Japan after the World War II? Is there any proof that the majority of the people of Iraq don't want a chance to be ruled by a government that is representative of the different factions in the country? If there were no terrorist acts committed by the fundamentalists and if there was support from the Muslim nations in the region and of the world wouldn't this transition be a smoother?
In fact there is no guarantee that democracy will work even if the people fight for it. One only has to look at Bangladesh to see it can go either way.
March 20, 2004, 06:57 PM
In regards to your claptrap about America's love of "democracy" and how it worked in Japan and Germany, I would like you to read very thoroughly the following article:
It doesn't answer any of your questions directly. But you probably can deduce a lot of stuff just from reading it.
[Edited on 20-3-2004 by Arnab]
March 21, 2004, 04:47 PM
Sorry about that, the second article should have been: Article 2 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3521672.stm)
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.