Many Iraqis Turn Anger Toward the U.S.

burek

Member
Feb 19, 2002
190
0
0
Many Iraqis Turn Anger Toward the U.S.

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Just days ago, U.S. troops were cheered and kissed as they destroyed the symbols of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s regime. Today, after a week of chaos, it's a whole different story.


After looters ran wild, American forces shot civilians and the lack of basic services spread misery across the land, many Iraqis turned their anger away from Saddam Hussein and toward what they saw as their new oppressor: the United States of America.


"They are aggressors," wheezed Ali Ahmed, 17, lying in a hospital bed as a tube drained fluid from his lungs. "They destroyed us. They put us in war and didn't let us sleep. They just raided Baghdad."


Ahmed said he was shot in the back by an American bullet Friday as he left his home to purchase bread for his family's breakfast. A suicide bomber attacked U.S. troops up the street, and Ahmed accused the Americans of responding with indiscriminate fire.


U.S. troops rolled across the deserts of Iraq (news - web sites) expecting to find people dancing in the streets and cheering their arrival. There was some of that. But there was also anger.


Many Iraqis say that could subside quickly if the Americans ? now de facto rulers of their nation ? can quickly restore basic services, bring law and order (news - Y! TV) to their cities, and stop shooting their people.


Others say they need to do one more thing: leave.


"If Americans and British are here to destroy the regime and liberate Iraq, we welcome them," said Emad Fadil, a 26-year-old worker in the southern city of Basra. "But if they come to occupy Iraq, we will fight them to the end ? like the Palestinians."


On Tuesday, a crowd in the northern city of Mosul allegedly attacked a group of Marines trying to take over a government building. Iraqis threw rocks, hit the Marines with fists and elbows and spat at them, according to Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks at U.S. Central Command in Doha, Qatar.


After reporting incoming fire, the Marines opened fire on the crowd, killing seven people, he said.


On Wednesday, another shooting in Mosul killed three people and wounded at least 11, including several who said American troops fired at them from rooftops. A Marine sergeant near the scene said the Americans were responding to fire from another rooftop.


"They are killing us and no one's talking about it. We want Saddam back," said Zahra Yassin, whose 17-year-old son was shot in the stomach and wounded. "Let the embargo return. At least there was security."


In the city of Kut, southeast of Baghdad, an anti-American cleric took over City Hall. Hundreds of his followers blocked U.S. Marines from entering Tuesday with a message that "there is more than just one leader in the region." The Marines departed, opting against confrontation.


In the southern city of Ur, Shiite Muslims boycotted a meeting to create a postwar government because of U.S. plans to install a retired American general as Iraq's temporary administrator. Thousands protested near the meeting, chanting: "No to America and no to Saddam!"


There have been daily demonstrations in Baghdad as well, many outside the Palestine Hotel, temporary home to hundreds of international journalists and U.S. Marines. Hundreds of people hold up banners demanding the restoration of electricity, water and phone service. Many also urge the Americans to leave town.


Even as people topple statues of Saddam, they criticize the U.S.-led invasion for the death and destruction it wrought, and warn that Americans will become targets unless they fix what they destroyed and leave.


"America comes to destroy Iraq and its people," said Fouad Abdullah Ahmed, 49, part of a rally setting a Saddam statue on fire. "We are Muslim. We don't like the Americans and the British."


Many Iraqis believe the Americans launched the war to seize their oil. In what many in Baghdad consider confirmation of that, one of the first Baghdad buildings seized by U.S. forces was the oil ministry. They are still there.

"Let them take the oil and leave," Mohammed Ramadan said in the northern city of Tikrit, trembling at the sight of American tanks rolling through his city.

Actor Fadel Abbas watched his theater get torched by looters.

"They didn't want to protect these places ? only the oil ministry," he said. "Why the oil ministry?"

The U.S. military now says it will work to stop looters. Americans armed newly recruited Iraqi police officers with handguns to help keep order.

Marines and Iraqi police caught about a dozen men trying to loot money from a burned out bank in central Baghdad on Wednesday. Marines wrestled some of the men to the ground ? including one who had a prosthetic leg ? and found large stacks of Iraqi dinars on them.

Looting that has plagued Iraq's cities has been the cause of much of the people's anger, and many blame the Americans for encouraging it. Donny George, director for research at the Ministry of Antiquities, complained that the Americans let Iraq's museums be sacked.

"This is what the Americans wanted," he said. "They wanted Iraq to lose its history."
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
Should we give them a quick reminder of life under Saddam and kill all dissenters?

From the sounds of most of their concerns they have little to worry about. They are building a police force of Iraqis for security and having town meetings to address Iraqi concerns, ideas, and identify prospective local leaders for the future all Iraqi govt, they haven't even given us a chance yet. As their lives improve they will settle down, soon enough all their wishes will be reality and all theirs fears allayed.

We will not "steal" their oil, we will not rule over them, we will not colonize, we will restore basic service and provide better ones that they had previously.
 

phillyTIM

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2001
1,942
10
81
And this is just the beginning.

They've only understood that they could protest now, for a few days; wait until they get themselves rounded up and united in their desires.

So far the US hasn't done anything that Saddam didn't do; they already have shot the crowds and killed people; how is any different than from what Saddam used to do?

Bush needs to put his tail between his legs and get out now before it really gets messy.
 

HappyPuppy

Lifer
Apr 5, 2001
16,997
2
71
Originally posted by: phillyTIM
And this is just the beginning.

They've only understood that they could protest now, for a few days; wait until they get themselves rounded up and united in their desires.

So far the US hasn't done anything that Saddam didn't do; they already have shot the crowds and killed people; how is any different than from what Saddam used to do?

Bush needs to put his tail between his legs and get out now before it really gets messy.



Why would the U.S. get out now and leave the country in a state of anarchy? Factions would divide up the country into fiefdoms with warlords ruling over them. There would be nationwide conflicts between the warlores all trying to replace Saddam and impose their own brand of tyranny.

We are doing the right thing. Give it time.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
Originally posted by: phillyTIM
And this is just the beginning.

They've only understood that they could protest now, for a few days; wait until they get themselves rounded up and united in their desires.

So far the US hasn't done anything that Saddam didn't do; they already have shot the crowds and killed people; how is any different than from what Saddam used to do?

Bush needs to put his tail between his legs and get out now before it really gets messy.

Did they shoot them because they were protesting, or because they were being shot at? How many have they gassed? How many people have they stopped from practicing their religion?

You have just about gone to the point where I won't even respond to your trolling, you hate Bush, woo woo, what a shocker, you got anything relevant to say here or are you just taking up good bandwidth?
 

Format C:

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,662
0
0
Originally posted by: HappyPuppy
Originally posted by: phillyTIM
And this is just the beginning.

They've only understood that they could protest now, for a few days; wait until they get themselves rounded up and united in their desires.

So far the US hasn't done anything that Saddam didn't do; they already have shot the crowds and killed people; how is any different than from what Saddam used to do?

Bush needs to put his tail between his legs and get out now before it really gets messy.



Why would the U.S. get out now and leave the country in a state of anarchy? Factions would divide up the country into fiefdoms with warlords ruling over them. There would be nationwide conflicts between the warlores all trying to replace Saddam and impose their own brand of tyranny.

We are doing the right thing. Give it time.

So that braindead liberals would be able to point and say "See? I told you so." ?

 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
As long as there's oil under the sand . . . we will be in Iraq. I'm not saying Bush invaded Iraq for oil . . . just noting that even the ignorant aren't oblivious.
 

freakflag

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2001
3,951
1
71
Originally posted by: phillyTIM
And this is just the beginning.

They've only understood that they could protest now, for a few days; wait until they get themselves rounded up and united in their desires.

So far the US hasn't done anything that Saddam didn't do; they already have shot the crowds and killed people; how is any different than from what Saddam used to do?

Bush needs to put his tail between his legs and get out now before it really gets messy.

If it rains tomorrow on Bahgdad, will you say that the sky is falling?

Don't be so frightened.



 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Obviously hindsight is 20/20 but the US should have planned for a massive engineering corp to enter Iraq (hopefully with military security) to re-establish electricity, water, reasonable hospital facilities, and food. NGOs asked for it before the war but got a cold shoulder. The UN gave a few peeps but did not significantly challenge the US as to its plans for humanitarian relief in the aftermath.

Welcome to Middle East equivalent to the South after the Civil War. The Souith was "Reconstructed" but the War of Northern Aggression is not fondly remembered . . . 140 years after the fact.
 

Piano Man

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2000
3,370
0
76
Originally posted by: freakflag
Originally posted by: phillyTIM
And this is just the beginning.

They've only understood that they could protest now, for a few days; wait until they get themselves rounded up and united in their desires.

So far the US hasn't done anything that Saddam didn't do; they already have shot the crowds and killed people; how is any different than from what Saddam used to do?

Bush needs to put his tail between his legs and get out now before it really gets messy.

If it rains tomorrow on Bahgdad, will you say that the sky is falling?

Don't be so frightened.

Must be easy to say that from behind your computer screen.
 

Martin

Lifer
Jan 15, 2000
29,178
1
81
these new developments are interesting to say the least....I wonder if they'll last though.


I wonder what Iraq will look like after a few years...
 

LilBlinbBlahIce

Golden Member
Dec 31, 2001
1,837
0
0
Originally posted by: phillyTIM
And this is just the beginning.

They've only understood that they could protest now, for a few days; wait until they get themselves rounded up and united in their desires.

So far the US hasn't done anything that Saddam didn't do; they already have shot the crowds and killed people; how is any different than from what Saddam used to do?

Bush needs to put his tail between his legs and get out now before it really gets messy.

I am totaly against the war and not exactly a big fan of Bush, but leaving now would be the mistake of the century, one that we have done in the past and should not repeat. As I have mentioned before, we abandoned the Afghanis after the war with the USSR and see what happened. We abandoned the Shiites after the Gulf and they got slaughtered for uprising agains Saddam. If we leave now, the country will fall into anarchy and the hatred towards the US will grow exponentially. Right or wrong, its best we finish what we started.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
As long as there's oil under the sand . . . we will be in Iraq. I'm not saying Bush invaded Iraq for oil . . . just noting that even the ignorant aren't oblivious.

Obviously hindsight is 20/20 but the US should have planned for a massive engineering corp to enter Iraq (hopefully with military security) to re-establish electricity, water, reasonable hospital facilities, and food. NGOs asked for it before the war but got a cold shoulder. The UN gave a few peeps but did not significantly challenge the US as to its plans for humanitarian relief in the aftermath.

Yeah, all that Bosnian and Haitin and Afghani oil has made our life easy, even after we colonized Kuwait and stole theirs, so we thought we would steal Iraq's as well.

The US did plan for events such as this, remember there war a water pipeline running from Kutait almost 100 miles not even 10 days into our action. For the first time in warfare we used surgeons directly behind the front lines, working on 80% Iraqi wound primarily. Do you realize that since the time of the civil war they have NEVER been able to lower the percentage of KIA from those wounded on the battlefield, it had stayed constant despite all advances in medicine, in this conflict we reduced it by 3/4.
No other country could have even taken control of Iraq in such a fast time either, they would still be bogged down in fighting while we are rebuilding right now.
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce
Originally posted by: phillyTIM
And this is just the beginning.

They've only understood that they could protest now, for a few days; wait until they get themselves rounded up and united in their desires.

So far the US hasn't done anything that Saddam didn't do; they already have shot the crowds and killed people; how is any different than from what Saddam used to do?

Bush needs to put his tail between his legs and get out now before it really gets messy.

I am totaly against the war and not exactly a big fan of Bush, but leaving now would be the mistake of the century, one that we have done in the past and should not repeat. As I have mentioned before, we abandoned the Afghanis after the war with the USSR and see what happened. We abandoned the Shiites after the Gulf and they got slaughtered for uprising agains Saddam. If we leave now, the country will fall into anarchy and the hatred towards the US will grow exponentially. Right or wrong, its best we finish what we started.

How was the UN helping Afghanistan after the Soviet war?

On top of this, the UN decision to cutback funding on demining operations will cost more lives and set back efforts to rebuild the shattered country. The decision in September 2000 to scale down by 50 percent its efforts through its Mine Action Programme will add to the ranks of amputees, beggars and widows in the world?s most mined country.

"In his report to the UN Security Council highlighting the humanitarian crisis, Kofi Annan has urged member states to contribute generously to the UN?s $250 million appeal for Afghanistan, saying they were partly to blame for the country?s plight.

?The international community having failed to remain engaged in Afghanistan following the departure of the forces of the former USSR, bears a large share of responsibility for Afghanistan?s current plight,? he said in an AFP press release on 25 April 2001."

Who was one of Afgahinstans largest aid donors before the Soviet invasion?

The small Afghan Communist party, meanwhile, broke into factions, while a fundamentalist Muslim group began an armed insurrection in 1975. Daud Khan worked to lessen Afghanistan's dependence on Soviet and U.S. aid

"Leftists in the Afghan officer corps, perhaps fearing a blow against themselves, murdered Daud Khan in April 1978 and pledged to pursue friendly relations with the U.S.S.R. Thus Afghanistan, under the rule of Nur Mohammad Taraki, was virtually in the Soviet camp. When Taraki objected to a purge of the Afghan Cabinet, however, the leader of a rival faction, Hafizullah Amin, had him arrested and killed. These intramural Communist quarrels both embarrassed the Soviets and threatened to destabilize the Afghan regime in the face of growing Muslim resistance. In the fall of 1979 the Soviets built up their military strength across the border and hinted to American diplomats that they might feel obliged to intervene. On Dec. 25, 1979, the Soviet army began its occupation, and two days later a coup d'état led to the murder of Amin and the installation of Babrak Karmal, a creature of the KGB who had been brought into the country by Soviet paratroops."

Who helped them overthrow this imposed dictator? If you readthe first link skip over this, it will be be a redundant quote to you:

"Since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan on 24 December 1979, the US gave full support to the Islamic resistance against the Soviet-backed regime. Between 1979-89, the CIA poured some $5-6 billion in aid to the Islamic Afghan guerillas."

Wow, we helped some Islamics, seems to be a habit anymore.

What is the US doing today in Afghanistan.

Your contention that WE "abandoned" the Shia in 1991 is rather interesting. There were 30 other countries with forces there that also obeyed the UN resolution calling for a cease-fire unless attacked directly. Why is it when we play it by the book in the one rare instance everyone else does, we are the only ones getting blamed? Considering we are the only country to ever ask the UN for permission to wage war, it seems we have more respect for international consensus than anyone else, they never even make the effort.
 

BDawg

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
11,631
2
0
My Corporate Finance professor (a Vietnam Vet) mentioned last night that Iraq was starting to feel like Vietnam. Kinda scary...
 

Alistar7

Lifer
May 13, 2002
11,978
0
0
Rome wasn't built in a day.

Yesterday 2,200 Iraqi citizens volunteered to help police their town, don't focus on only the negatives.
Those working alongside us to improve their lives and rebuild their country far outnumber the protestors.
Hopefully they will be able to turn full control of the govt. over to the people of Iraq quickly, this has been their stated goal from day one. They have already held meetings to address concerns and identify local leadership. I can understand the perspective of the people of Iraq though, consider 60% of their population is under 26 and have lived their entire lives under Saddam's regime, I would want dramatic changes myself. Young people are generally more liberal and ideological in their thinking, as well as more likely to be vocal and to assemble to protest. Remember who gave them the right to protest without fear of torture and death. We cannot just walk away and watch a fairly modern civilization slide into complete anarchy and chaos.

Who will maintain basic services? Who will collect the garbage? Who will pay them? With what? They are still under sanctions. There is much work that needs to be done, it has started and the more it progresses the more they will calm down. We are lucky in that the MAJORITY did not enjoy much of a decent lifestyle besides the lack of basic human rights, even small improvements to you or I will be substantial to them.
 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,706
430
126
Obviously hindsight is 20/20 but the US should have planned for a massive engineering corp to enter Iraq (hopefully with military security) to re-establish electricity, water, reasonable hospital facilities, and food. NGOs asked for it before the war but got a cold shoulder. The UN gave a few peeps but did not significantly challenge the US as to its plans for humanitarian relief in the aftermath.
The United Naions and NGOs have been planning a massive humanitarian response for nearly a month, but that is a bureaucracy unto itself, replete with its own inefficiencies and political in-fighting.

For crying out loud, Baghdad is only just NOW secure enough to even talk seriously about getting on with the business of humanitarian and civil engineering responses. The UN and NGOs won't set foot within insecure areas where there are still significant risks of gun fire, anyway. Cities to the South of Baghdad which have been secure for a period of time greater than a few hours are receiving humanitarian assistance.

Arab fighters, Iraqi militia, and Hussein loyalists are still holding-up in certain parts of Baghdad 10 - 20 strong and exchanging fire with US forces. Opportunistic criminals will always come out of the woodwork in these times of civil unrest and emergency. The only way to stop it is to put an oppressive 'lockdown' on the entire city for days, or for the general population to quickly mobilize to provide their own security. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the general population think its always someone else's job to stick their necks out, never their job, so most people do nothing except complain, which enables robbers and looters to rule the streets.

There are no easy answers, no quick fixes.
 

Bleep

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
3,972
0
0
Where did all the aiaqi army go? Well you are seeing them on the streets of bagdad, looting, protesting and just disrupting any attempt to get the city and the country safe and to stop any attempt to give individuals freedom. To think that they just faded away is stupid.

Bleep