|
The attackers in Iraq
|
View this Thread in Original format
| surferfb |
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003...ain564357.shtml
(CBS) In an exclusive interview with CBS News, three men who claim to have participated in several recent and deadly attacks on U.S. soldiers say they're not doing it for love of Saddam -- but instead for God and their country.
U.S. officials blame "remnants of Saddam's regime" -- "dead enders" they call them -- for the unending attacks.
"Are any of you former Saddam loyalists? Work for Saddam? Love Saddam?" asked CBS News Correspondent David Hawkins.
The men all shook their heads "no" as a translator said, "They just follow the instruction of Holy Koran."
"So this is a religious war?" questioned Hawkins. "It's a holy war?"
"Yes, yes, " said one man. "We are farmers. We're Iraqis. This isn't about politics."
The three claim to be the ones who attacked a military convoy last week west of Baghdad -- an attack that killed one American soldier. A Baghdad gun-runner arranged a meeting with them for CBS News.
"Why do you fight? Why do you attack American soldiers?" Hawkins asked.
"This is occupation, so we fight against the occupation," said a fighter.
"You're very upset the Americans are here," asked Hawkins, "but are you glad Saddam is gone?"
"We feel happy now because we can speak freely, but at the same time we don't want Saddam neither, or America. We just want the American soldiers to leave our country," reported the translator.
The Iraqi fighters chose the meeting spot in the middle of the desert -- in the middle of nowhere really, because they felt safe there. They said they know the territory well and the Americans don't.
"All of them will die here. We advise them that they have to leave Iraq before they die here," stated one fighter.
Threats from these men won't frighten anyone away, but their fanaticism and fervor suggests that they'll put up a fight -- for some time to come.
Comments? |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
Here is my comment:
Get out before more get killed!!
They didnt find any WMD,cant find Sadam, and there is no sign of rebuilding the country,so you might as well just leave,since staying there seems pointless. |
|
|
| Galapidate |
| Yeah, and now more US troops have died in this war than the Gulf War. |
|
|
| Izzy |
ya, america should just leave with their tail between their legs and let religious extremism take grip of iraq, thats exactly what we need :rolleyes:
i can just see it, you guys bickering ten years from now how the US foregien policy sucks, how way back in 2003 they inacted a regeim change in iraq in its consequence a religous government took its place and started oppressing the people and threating the world - and oh ya its all the US's fault (seems like iran all over agian).
when will the arab countries understand the concept of seperation of religion and state?
its as if they're asking to be oppressed, be it a secular tyrant or religious clerics |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vesa
What? They don't play along with the Neocon vision? Then Plan B. Umm, Plan B?
Lesson: Never expect the opponent to play on your terms. |
funny, i actually chuckled, its a good point. But in my point of view its way to early for the iraqi people to understand what liberal democracy is, they have no grasp of what it is since they have been cut off from the outside world for many years. thats why america must stand firm and stay there until a full working liberal government is in place and working... give that a few years and then if the iraqis reject that for an opressive religious government then ill start believing there is something totally wrong about their culture. |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by Vesa
I agree that only after a trial period of a few years, we'll see reliably if the Neocon vision of Iraq's future works or not. Too early to condemn it yet.
In my opinion, a bigger problem than the low democratic maturity of ordinary Iraqis is that there are local leaders who would benefit from a guerilla war if they are losing money because of democracy. Only a country with a long experience of democracy could have resolve to fight against such formidable anti-democratic opposition.
The US would need to simultaneously gradually take away power from the anti-democratic segments of the Iraqi population. And that would immediately cause more guerilla attacks. If there's a more fearsome motive for guerilla actions than religion, it's money. |
good points, i agreee.
i had heard an interview with one ex-cia official who gave a rather brilliant idea to help achieve peace;
In the majority of iraq the ones ruling the communities are small clans or families. it would be in the US's interest to go to these people and tell them "listen, heres a little money, go out and bring order in your area. if you cant control your people, we will put someone else in your place" ... basicly extortion, they understand the language of force better, if they are 'threated' to do their job 'or else' then they'd be more apt to see it taken care of. seems like a good idea in my opinion. that way not only will the iraqis be taking an active roll in iraq's future and it will put more US soldiers out of harms way.  |
|
|
| surferfb |
| I was listening to an interview w/ an Iraqi man and he brought up a good point. He said democracy is what the Iraqis want, not what the Americans want. If the Iraqis vote to have a religious government could we really do anything about it? |
|
|
| Izzy |
| quote: | Originally posted by surferfb
I was listening to an interview w/ an Iraqi man and he brought up a good point. He said democracy is what the Iraqis want, not what the Americans want. If the Iraqis vote to have a religious government could we really do anything about it? |
thats what the book im reading "the future of freedom" gets into. what you describe is a democracy, but not a liberal one. A liberal democracy is one that has limited power, it is constituted by the basic human rights, one of them being freedom of religion. So if a religious party is elected it is alright as long as the new government is constrained not to interfer with one's rights and doesnt allow for another dictatoriship to occur. I mean sheesh, Hitler got elected democratically but if the right limits were set on his government (such as seperation of powers between the legislature and execuitive branch, or an idependent judicarary system) maybe we would not have had WW2
Dictators get elected into power even today - Chavez in Venezualia, Assad in Syria, but by having the two countries who founded true liberal democracy (US & UK) set the blue print for the future iraqi government we will be assured that such a case will not arise agian, that is unless the extremists get their way and succeed in making the allied forces flee before they finish their objective |
|
|
| ahlamalek |
| ahem assad wasn't elected, he was crowned :p |
|
|
| Dj_Irish |
| quote: | Originally posted by Izzy
Dictators get elected into power even today - Chavez in Venezualia, Assad in Syria |
Wait, since when was Chavez of Venuzuela a dictator?
oh, and nice discussion you guys got going on here btw :) |
|
|
| rupert |
| quote: | | Wait, since when was Chavez of Venuzuela a dictator? |
Yes, Chavez may have flaws but he is trying to do something to help the poor, trying to use oil revenues to get people out of poverty. But no, as in every other banana republic the ruling elite cant tolerate that a ruler would use the government to benefit the bulk of the people not just the rich and so they actively sabotage and try and bring down his government, of course actively backed by the USA.
The majority of the Venezuelans (the poor) love Chavez and of course the USA cant have any ruler who doesnt toe the company line and thus he is portrayed as a dictator.
The definition of a dictator is someone who rules without genuine consent, I think that would very much describe George W Bush, the american definition of democracy is "where the guy with the least amount of votes wins" |
|
|
|
|
