Why iraq's people kill soldiers

U.S. and U.K. release iraq's people from suppression.
But iraq's people kill soldiers of U.S. and U.K.
Why?
 
Please teach...

Saddam, though an evil dictator, managed to achieve one thing, he managed to bring relative peace among the various ethnicities of Iraq.
He did this through the barrel of a gun and through force of arms, not unlike the method used by the US and UK recently to introduce democracy.

Thousands of people died in the war, millions exist in a state of martial law with little rights and ruled by an unelected totalitarian regime backed by the US, what has improved?.
The people get sporadic a electricity supply, little petrol, have less food and more invasive policing than ever before but now they are being occupied by foreign powers that broke international law with an excuse that turned out to be a lie while continuing to back Israel in another illegal occupation and crusade all around the Muslim world.

To conclude ask yourself whether the people of Iraq are any less oppressed than they were before. The answer is no. Is the world a safer place with less terrorism? The answer is no.

>>an excuse that turned out to be a lie
Hey, it might not have been a lie, the U.S. government might have just been so stupid that they believed it... wait, how is that better?

>>2
Um, about that whole "relative peace among the various ethnicities of Iraq"... last I heard, he committed (basically) genocide against the Kurds and was quite harsh on the Shitte Muslims.

>>3
Indeed.

Just for note, I am against the war in Iraq.

Shitte Muslims

lol

Hahaha... Shitte... Hahahaha... MORON!

Saddam’s repression and murder of the Kurds stemmed from a revolution that began after the first gulf war, the Kurds, convinced that they would receive American support promised to them in previous years rose up in an attempt to oust Saddam and create an independent Kurdish state.

What happened next, mass murder using chemical weapons supplied to the regime by America to fight the Iranians, was a direct result of the aforementioned uprising and i stand by my point that relative to the state that it is in today, Iraq was peaceful under Saddam.

they are insurgent, not iraqies. they come from across the border because see a golden oportunity to bust some american without being terrorist. maybe if they didnt let thousands of insurgent from fallujah leave before entering the town, it wouldnt be happening on a regular basis.

remember alot of people in that region hates the american. and having them in iraq and makes them look bad is their only reason to live right now. sad people.

That's not true, the though there are many foreign fighters in the insurgents are largely Iraqis of the two major Muslim factions fighting together against what they see as a common enemy.

Fallujah was one stronghold of the insurgency, not the only one, nor the biggest, there are similar no go areas all over Iraq.

And maybe if Bush had a plan to win the peace and not just the war then maybe this situation would be under control.

The reason they let people out of Fallujah, and part of the reason Bush Sr. didn't take Baghdad, is that the outcome would have been ugly.

If you want to beat an enemy you never place them against the wall. They'll have no choice but to fight to the bitter end. People who know they will die are extremely dangerous because they are free to consider options they normally wouldn't.

In other words, once you've bottled them up they won't be fighting to survive, they'll be fighting to kill as many of your troops as they can before the bitter end.

but the us havent beed fightning a bloody war on their part. when there is someone in a house and hes dangerous adn the first try to kill him easy didnt work they just blow everything up with tanks.

ive seen alot of footage from iraq and i love the one where they try to get in a building but the enemy is screaming and throwing grenade and they just call a tank and then show the rumble with bodies.

That may be true to some degree, but that doesn't change that the opponents would still be more dangerous than they usually would be. And frankly, do you think the media is going to portray the not-so-successful forays US troops have? Where do you think they get the footage from?

And thanks for letting us know you enjoy watching people die. While I'm not a pacifist, it disgusts me how people sit in their comfy couches and enjoy the media spectacle on TV. War is a gruesome affair, you shouldn't "love" watching it.

>>2

Excellent answer.

America wonders why it's hated so badly by many people, when its soldiers - who are the only ambassadors of America that these people will see - are pulling off crap like shock and awe bombardment of their capital city and deposing a perfectly stable, if dictatorial, government.

How would you feel if another country, say, Russia went in and bombarded New York for a full night, levelled it, tore down the Statue of Liberty and parked a half-dozen aircraft carriers offshore while they were at it? Now imagine that Russia was ten times more powerful than the USA, and that everyone in America bloody well knew it. That's how many Iraqi people are feeling now. And what's America's response?

It's putting itself further and further into debt by sending in more troops to kill more people. Way to go, government.

>>2
Is the world a safer place with less terrorism? The answer is no.

What? That makes no sense.

Why is that, does terrorism make the world a safer place?

If you cast your mind back to the days of the war, the war was perpetrated to prevent what turned out to be imaginary WMDs falling into terrorists hands, there were even imaginary links to terrorists organisations dreamed up by Rumsfeld and Co to further attempt to justify an unjustifiable war.

Speaking of justification, our paper recently ran an editorial piece written by Bush apoligists who talked about "actionable intelligence" and how if they did it all over again believing Iraq to have WMDs they'd do the exact same thing.  Seems the apologists would like people to forget as quickly as they do that people in the Administration knew the WMD threat was bogus.  (Hard to blame them for forgetting, since the story has changed so many times now.   What was it this month?  Oh yeah, bringing Democracy to Iraq.  If the elections take place.)

Btw, the world WOULD be a safer place with less terrorism, but the million-dollar question is, "is there less terrorism?" and to that, the answer appears to be no.

>>13

Should probably be more like: "Is the world _now_ a safer place with less terrorism? The answer is no."

Many people in Iraq may be nice people, but some Moslem
fundamentalist go to extremes. Their views have a tendency
to swing from one extreme to the other.
To have faith is very important. Most people are not so strong
as to endure every hardship. If we have right faith, we could
make our world more peaceful. But the most regrettable thing
is that there are always wars and battles among religious nations
such as Iraq, Israel and Jordan.
It's very hard to believe why some religious groups are always
fighting and killing a lot of people.
What is worse, they insist that they do so for the sake of God.
Considering such situations, it might be right in saying that
if we believe everything completely a religious group says,
it would be dangerous, and couldn't have right faith.
We have to distinguish between brainwash and right faith.
People in Iraq who can kill innocent people without hesitation
may be brainwashed.

shouldve just nuked em from the start,solve all the problems in a second

Yea that would've taught them not to develop WMDs illegally... Which they didn’t, unlike like Bush and his support of nuclear proliferation (Ie "mini nukes"), a clear violation of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty and a dozen others signed over the duration of the cold war to prevent the world descending into a radioactive wasteland... Idiot.

And couldn't what was said about Muslims in post 17 equally apply to Christians?
Iraq was far more secular than America is today before the war, or more accurately the build up to the war when the government started courting the support of religious fanaticism. And why single out Muslim countries? Over the past thirty years Iraq has been involved in a handful of wars (and similarly Jordan), considerably less than America.

In a sense that's right. I'd better say that why there are
a lot of wars in religious countries. It's hard to believe
us, who live in a non-religious, namely very secular nation.
Could you give some hint? 

This is all well and good, but the real question at this point is how do we get ourselves out of this mess?  At this point, it's all throwing good money (and men) after bad.  On the other hand, we can't exactly just pull everyone out now, or the place will deteriorate into anarchy faster than you can say "WMD."  Any thoughts?

>>21

They're going to pull out after "the vote," wash their hands, then blame the people of iraq for the following descent into anarchy.

>>20

Even in non-religious countries, there can be war over politics, or race, or anything else. The only people who won't go to war are people who feel entirely safe and have no motive to go to war. America was looking good right up until 9/11 hit and everyone panicked.

In general people go to war in order to protect themselves. Many people think attack is the best form of defense.

Religion just served as an excuse for many wars. If religion hadn't been used they would have come up with something else in its stead.

>>25

Anything else wouldn't be nearly as effective at galvanizing people to support 'teh cause.'

I was reading about a book dealing with the Yugoslavian affair and the war in Kosovo and such. One thing the book mentions was allowing the country to be split up never occured to them. One way to (maybie) solve this is allow Iraq to dissolve into three states. Thatway the differing factions are satisfied. Of course, there are the technicalities and realities of doing this. We are all just armchair politicians anyway.

>>26
That's naive, IMO.

>>2

The only way Saddam brought peace to all the sects of Islam in Iraq was by killing almost all but his own. I mean, shit do you know how he came to power? He walked into a government meating and started calling out names of people and took them into the back and shot them, then he told everyone else in the room that they would follow him or be killed. Then there was all the Genocide and murders his regieme committed. Hey, do you remember something called the Gulf War, do you remember what he was doing there?

Anyway my point is that Saddam was a bad man, verry bad man, i hope they kill him. However the people following him and attacking soldiers and Iraqi police forces in Iraq do so because their Mosque leaders tell them to do so, and their Mosque leaders are angry that they arent getting the same Suni benefits that they got under the saddam regeim.

Now i will begin to sound a little racist. But Islam is a violent religion, its roots are violent, its practices are sometimes violent, but more than all, the majority of its followers in the middle east are uneducated (in anything else but the Koran) and ULTRA VIOLENT.

Believe it or not the internet has more uses than compiling compilations of pornography, though this fact has obviously passed you buy judging by your abject stupidity and inability to grasp even the most basic understanding of Iraqi history.

Saddam killed his opponents with out prejudice, even "his own" as you so tactfully put it.

Saddams father dies when he was young and his mother remarried, by the time Saddam moved to Baghdad with his brother he was known for his viciousness. He tutored in reading and writing by a man named Khayrallah who had been expelled from the Iraqi army for supporting a "Pro-Nazi" coup attempt that failed. Khayrallah's bitterness towards the British and imperialism, soon was transferred to Saddam. 
In 1956, he participated in a non-successful coup attempt against the monarchy of King Faisal II. In 1957, he joined the Baath party, a radical nationalist movement. In 1958, a non-Baathist group of army officers led by General Abdul Qassim succeeded in overthrowing the King.
In 1959, Saddam and a group of Baathist supporters attempted to assassinate Gen. Qassim by a day-light machine-gun attack. The attack was unsuccessful, but it helped to place Hussein in a leadership position in the Baathist movement and furthered the process of nationalist political indoctrination. After the attack he fled to Syria and from syria to Egypt.

In 1963, a group of Baathist army officers tortured and assassinated General Qassim.
Hussein rose quickly through the ranks, due to his extreme efficiency as a torturer. The Baathist party split in 1963 and Saddam had supported the "winner" in the latest party struggle. He was appointed by Michel Aflaq to be a member of the Baath Regional Command and then deputy Secretary-General of the Baathists in 1966. Hussein then set up a Baathist internal party security system known as the Jihaz Haneen.

In 1968, another major upheaval in Iraq gave Hussein the greatest opportunity for further advancement; his mentor, Gen. Bakr and the Baathist seized the government. Hussein was made Deputy Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council, in charge of internal security.

He spent the next ten years raising through the ranks untill he aquired what was the equivelent of the second in command of the baathist party

On July 16, 1979, President Bakr resigned, officially due to health problems, but in reality a victim of Hussein's political in-fighting. Moving quickly to consolidate his power, he called a major Baathist meeting on July 22, 1979. During the meeting, various family members and other Hussein devotees urged that the party be "cleansed". Hussein then read a list of names and asked that they step outside. Once there, they are taken into custody. A high-ranking member of the Revolutionary Command, the head of the labor unions, the leading Shiite member of the Command, and twenty (20) others are then systematically and personally killed by Hussein and his top party officials. During the next few days, reports indicate that as many as 450 other military officers, deputy prime ministers, and "non-party faithful" were rounded up and killed. This purge insured Hussein's consolidation of power in Iraq.

In 1980, Iraq, supported by the Americans, invaded Iran and conducted an eight year war against one of his nearest neighbors and the home of Shiite fundamentalist Muslims and the Kurds (Iraqi minority) were sprayed with poison gas (Supplied by America) for participating with the Iranians in an attempted overthrow of his country.

In 1988, after millions being killed, Iraq and Iran conduct a cease-fire and ended the bloodshed

Even the war against Iran didn't end the peoples support for Hussein, although some small protests did dampen the population's support for the conflict with Iran. Ultimately however, the war with Iran only strengthened Hussein's resolve and, in some eyes, causes him to become a "hero" of Arab nationalism. This brings us to the chapter of Hussein's life that has not been thoroughly researched and written. It involves the 1990, summer invasion of Kuwait over a dispute about oil prices and political control of the Persian Gulf. The subsequent United Nation Resolutions and UN intervention in the defense of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other nearby countries will undoubtedly impact on the history of Saddam Hussein.

Saddam put down his opponents with a ferocity that was rarely matched in the 20th century, but that was just that, there was no genocide, because genocide by definition needs to be based on some kind of preexisting prejudice.

And so what Saddam was a bad man, in my opinion, G W is a bad man in mine, and the kangaroo court set out to try him has little intention to spare his life and little other point than to justify his murder in the eyes of the wider international community, but to suggest that the people are fighting because of their religion is based on the ignorance that many come to expect from Americans, in their eyes they are fighting against an occupying, imperialist army which has brought nothing but death and chaos to Iraq and has left the country in worse shape than it was before the invasion.

And btw you are not only a racist but an ignorant racist, couldn't everything you just said about Islam in the middle east also apply to Christianity in America?

Oh, one last point, Geographic this time Korea isn't in the Middle East. GO BACK TO SCHOOL.

Aborn!

Could someone delete one of these entries, my browser was screwing around an i accidentally posted the same reply twice.

Oh and i must appologise, i read "Koran" as "Korea", so please disregard the last line.

KORAN EAT CAT

Islam in a pure form is about as peaceful as christianity.

lol pure form

>>34 speaks the truth.  All the shit about "Jihad" is actually based on very ambiguous scriptures.  The Qu'ran is constantly exploited by pseudo-militiants to push their personal agendas, much like the bible is by televangelists here in USA.

The problem lies in the people, not the religion.

The US didn't really invade Iraq for WMD or because Saddam was evil, or even for oil.  The first two reasons were only important because they gave a politically plausable excuse to invade.  Everyone knows that despite the vast oil wealth, the political and economic costs of a war to secure the resources would not be worthwhile, so long as OPEC operates at a reasonable market level, which they do.

The first two reasons...  of course Saddam is an evil bastard.  His human rights are almost as bad as Stalin or Hitler's.  Not very well liked.  Everyone knows he WANTED WMDs.  He didn't ever really have any.  If he did, Israel would have blown him up before he could bring them online.  (As they did in the '80s to a breeder reactor France gave him)  We did think we would find SOMETHING there we could point to, and were a bit surprised there was really nothing substantial.

We really invaded though to create a staging area in the middle east, and more importantly, to change Saudi Arabia's policy against Al-Qaeda recruitment and support.  Even after September 11th, Al-Qaeda continued to receive most of its money and personnell from Saudi Arabia, and the house of Saud couldn't really do anything about it, even though the US was pressuring them so much to stop.  So we took Iraq.  Now we have a bunch of tanks across from Saudi Arabia's border.  We're showing we're not afraid to bleed in a war (thanks to Bush's unilateralism and ignoring his populace, or whatever)  Our public opinion has always always been a problem, and been the only way to defeat us...  Well, I think that's a digression at thsi point.

A bunch of tanks across Saudi's Border.  Showed how much our military abilities have improved.  Our ability to launch quick wars (though that's more applicable to Afghanistan, where 'our' is in questionable).  Our ability to launch wars without access to Saudi ports, or significant support from neighboring countries (Though Iran has been helpful several times in the war on terror)

It wasn't even a unilateral war.  It just looked like it.  There wasn't the Middle-eastern support of the first war, but they think we're inept weaklings after Desert Storm and Afghanistan.    We had the support of most european states.  France, Germany, and Russia oppose our actions in Iraq because it will increase our power in the area.  So of course they oppose anything we're going to do there.  The other european nations fear France, Germany, and Russian dominance, so they actually ran away from the proposed alliance against us.  "In the end, the only countries siding with France, Germany, and Russia were Belgium, Sweden, Greece, and Belarus."  Don't forget about Poland, indeed.

So how is taking over Iraq going to convince the Saudis to crack down on support for Al-Qaeda?  Well, mostly it is the threat of flooding the world market with Iraqi oil, making the Saudi economy (hurting for the last decade) totally tank.  The threat of a possibly hostile American miltary across the border is not insignificant, but we're better behaved if we get our way.  Al-Qaeda HATES the US.  They know how to escape from our intelligence services.  They don't even fear our attacks because we've haven't shown any ability to endure casualties in a war since Korea.  The US invaded Iraq in their OWN interest to stop Al-Qaeda and demonstrate our military resolve and power to a middle-east that HATES us.  They're going to hate us no matter what we do.  With an american military presence in Iraq, they at least fear our ability to launch meaningful reprisals against them.  (Both Al-Qaeda and countries that support them)

And about Shock and Awe...  That was for our media more than Iraq.  The bombing and air-war in Iraq was much less significant than in Desert Storm.  In the intervening decade, they had not been able to significantly rebuild any targets we cared to bomb.

This is all really just me paraphrasing George Friedman's _America's Secret War_

It is Japanese kc.
One terrorist's person
The soldier of the U.S.-Britain army so that murdered man's family
and friend may dispel hatred and the grudge by the mistaken fire and
the friendly fire, etc. as for the badness of anything though it
doesn't do
It is likely to kill.

Let's go watch more Gundam SEED!

USA and UK didn't liberate Iraq. Why do Iraqis fight against USA and UK troops? >>12 said it best.

If a foreign country comes and attacks your country and kills your people, would you just let them destroy what you are? The fighters are defending their country.