|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jun 30, 2009 2:23:16 GMT
A little over 30 minutes ago: BAGHDAD – Iraqi forces assumed formal control of Baghdad and other cities Tuesday after American troops handed over security in urban areas in a defining step toward ending the U.S. combat role in the country. A countdown clock broadcast on Iraqi TV ticked to zero as the midnight deadline passed for U.S. combat troops to finish their pullback to bases outside cities.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090630/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2009 5:07:55 GMT
Scenes of rejoicing in the streets of Baghdad on the morning news in Europe.
|
|
|
|
Post by hwinpp on Jun 30, 2009 7:30:36 GMT
Good for them. They must be happy to be finally taking over control.
|
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jun 30, 2009 13:06:17 GMT
This gets us back to what role does the UN play in the world? There were untold documented cases of horrible human rights violations throughout Saddam Hussein's dictatorship. I suppose had the US not invaded, Hussein would still be in power. But of course the parallel question is, what right did the US have to invade?
If there were a global agency that truly functioned to oversee abuses of power, there would be no "State Peace & Development Council" in Burma, no Mugabe, no Hussein, and no George Bush (either of them).
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2009 13:40:00 GMT
It is open to speculation whether fewer people would have died or been mistreated if Saddam had stayed in power. Under Saddam, the religious minorities -- notably Christians and Jews -- lived in harmony in Iraqi society, the veil was not common in urban areas, and there were no restrictions on what people could eat and drink. Nightclubs and cinema operated freely, and there was a vibrant press, although it operated with restrictions on a lot of subjects.
All of that is finished now, because the United States found it preferable to support a nearby completely closed country which accepts no religion other than Islam on its soil, demands that women be veiled and accords them almost no rights, requires that all food and drink adhere to Koranic rules, does not allow any public entertainment, and banned cinema back in the 1950's. The press is totally censored and under royal control.
The U.S. preferred to put its backing behind this other country because Americans love freedom and democracy.
As for the UN, its role is to prevent war rather than starting new ones. I think the UN peacekeeping forces generally do an excellent job in the places where they are allowed to go, but it is hard to get countries to contribute sufficient troops when the principal UN members are behind in their dues and there is no money to compensate the countries that are trying to help.
|
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jun 30, 2009 13:54:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Jun 30, 2009 20:33:38 GMT
And what about Afghanistan?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 30, 2009 20:41:13 GMT
Afghanistan is even more fucked up since it was a playground of both superpowers showing off their toys.
|
|
|
|
Post by imec on Jun 30, 2009 20:58:39 GMT
There is no question the U.S. could have handled all of this in a much better way. But to suggest that everything was hunky dory and everyone should have just left them alone is simply ignoring the fact that huge portions of the populations of both Iraq and Afghanistan were being oppressed, downtrodden, murdered etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by spindrift on Jun 30, 2009 21:34:44 GMT
We'll have to agree to disagree on this subject. Better not to pursue it here.
|
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Jul 1, 2009 23:45:43 GMT
I have a Moroccan journalist friend who visited Iraq when Saddam (remember, he was in large part a creature of the Western World) was still in power. While she would never pass over the appalling human-rights abuses of his reign, she met many Iraqi artists, journalists etc who cleverly found ways of expressing themselves and criticising the despotic power of the Ba'athists. As the Czechs I know managed to do under very horrible totalitarian regimes and their "grey" aftermath, described by Kundera.
All of that is gone. Women in Iraq, overall, held an enviable position in the Arab and/or Muslim world, and now they scarcely dare go outside, they get murdered for trying to attend university - even little school pupils have been murdered.
Opposition to Hussein would have had to come from within - with the peaceful solidarity of people around the world.
imec, they are still downtrodden and murdered. And they are killing each other.
|
|
|
|
Post by imec on Jul 2, 2009 1:39:57 GMT
imec, they are still downtrodden and murdered. And they are killing each other. Like I said - it could have been handled much better. My points are... 1) to do nothing would have been unacceptable and 2) I believe the situation in Afghanistan has in fact improved. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2009 4:55:33 GMT
It has improved from the taliban regime, but not from the Soviet supported regime (which collapsed due to U.S. funded talibans).
|
|
|
|
Post by lagatta on Jul 2, 2009 9:57:18 GMT
That is true, much as I hate to support any aspect of the Soviet bulldozer either. Kabul was a city with gardens, and at least in urban areas, women had been freed from the burkha (which is not the same thing as a headscarf or other traditional garment or show of piety; it is a walking tomb) and many were pursuing education and professional careers. (My former Solidarnosc leader friend, obviously no friend of Soviet satellitism, agrees).
|
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Jul 2, 2009 14:49:07 GMT
The thing about the US going into foreign countries is not about whether it "works" or not, it's about what right do they have to do it in the first place?
The reason given always sounds noble, but looking behind the spin in the vast majority -- perhaps all -- of these invasions would indicate otherwise.
|
|
