© the eyeranian

I wonder what would be Michael L's reaction to all this. So if someone critisized Bush he would be whipped 80 times ;-) what a noble concept eh?

Whether you like it or not, it's called pacification. When so many of the youngsters are acting like soccer hooligans and things can get out of hand, they have to be disciplined so they will learn that they have to start acting like gentlemen.

Gentlemen? such as US troops? give me a break will ya?

Arrested as a warning to others? What do you think they'll do to him? Lock him up and throw away the key? In recent weeks mobs have chased British troops down and killed them, US soldiers are shot in the head and killed while waiting on line for soda or a CD. The situation there isn't exactly business as usual. Nerves are running high, and being arrested isn't a punishment. If you do not follow the instructions of a police officer in the US or Canada during something as simple as a traffic stop you can be arrested too. But being arrested and maybe slapped with a fine hasn't been the downfall of democracy as we know it!

What is the difference between this and the insulting of mullahs in Iran? Are you kidding? The US troops didn't chase this poor boy down the street and beat him to death! That's the difference!

If you agreed with the war or not, democracy and rebuilding projects will take a lot longer to become established if US/British troops spend 90% of their time watching their backs for the next drive-by shooter. Or maybe we'll have everyone there pack up and come home - and just pray that someone worse than Saddam (for the Iraqi people and regional/US interests) doesn't find his way to power? It would be better to try to make the best out of a very bad situation.

You guys are just plain funny. When things don't agree with your taste, you just make up the rest to make it fit your story. One says "youngsters are acting like soccer hooligans" and the other suggests they "do not follow the instructions of a police officer" then threatens for "everyone there pack up and come home" which looks like what Iraqi people want as every day goes by.

Look, there were three parties present at this incident:

1 - The Iraqi school kids
2 - U.S. troops
3 - The media who took the picture and reported it

Neither one of us was there, so we must rely on recollection of one of these 3 parties. The first two groups couldn't be trusted with the accounts of what happened, as they couldn't possibly be unbiased. That leaves the AFP reporter(s) who reported the kid "insulted US troops" and was then arrested "as a warning to others". So where do you get the rest (hooligans or not following instructions)? Is that reported also or are you just making it up as you go? If I wanted to add to the story and said the kid was badly beaten and he has not been seen since, wouldn't that be just my imagination? So is your lame defense of things that only have been generated in your minds. Let's get real, have a frank and upfront exchange of ideas and don't make up stuff unless you can back it.

PS - Thanks for stealing the nickname I use here regularly.

"visitor," I was not responding directly to the incident with the school kids or the nude, alleged thieves when I wrote "do not follow the instructions of a police officer". I was responding to Pedram's statement that "'insulting' the U.S. or its troops is a punishable crime." My point being that getting arrested in a tense situation (i.e.- war) isn't that difficult and is not considered a punishment. My writing, "everyone there pack up and come home" was to say that is the alternative to what is happening now. I was not attempting to add further details to the story. It was an attempt to discuss the bigger picture of the ongoing problems between individual Iraqi citizens and US troops, just as Pedram was in asking the question, "Is this the 'democracy' we brought to Iraq?" But surely you could have figured this all out yourself.

Admittedly, shouting insults at someone is not a crime, but the current situation in Iraq, some 2+ months after a war, is more akin to marshall law than a democracy. To expect otherwise at this date is foolish.

You guys just don't understand that there is something here that is called "occupation". What would you do if your beloved country was invaded by foreign forces? Would you do nothing? Then you wouldn't have even smelt the "Pride". Or would you fight the occupiers? In that case, some idiots would be found to cririsize you for being "hooligons". The youngeter was too nice just to insult the American forces, There is no gaurantee everybody would be as nice.

"In recent weeks mobs have chased British troops down and killed them, US soldiers are shot in the head and killed while waiting on line for soda or a CD. The situation there isn't exactly business as usual. Nerves are running high, and being arrested isn't a punishment. If you do not follow the instructions of a police officer in the US or Canada during something as simple as a traffic stop you can be arrested too. But being arrested and maybe slapped with a fine hasn't been the downfall of democracy as we know it!".

what a crap. They are jumpy? Who cares? They should pack up and get lost out of that country which they have further ruined. It is not US or Canada we are talking about. And the US soldier is not an American or Canadian police officer arresting an American or a Canadian in the streets of Washington or Ottawa. American soldier is considered as the enemy in Iraq. This is not very difficult to understand, why some of you constantly fail to see this simple, simple issue? Why? How could you be so incapable of seeing this? You know, many other people in the world are paying the price for your guilt of being overly low inteligent, chnage it or be quiet.

Those men are not police and the kid is not dead. If you want to get in the face of men trained to agressivly use deadly force, I think simple detention is probably the best outcome one could hope for. Everybody lives to see another day.

I think it is best to take the report as it is written. In that case the young man should have been left alone, as an example. A good example. As was pointed out, he wasn't beating anyone or shooting anyone, just insulting them. sticks and stones...
If you want respect you have to give respect. It cannot be siezed.

The difference is that it's Iraq not the US or Canada! grow up for crying out loud. Get some perspective will you?

pacification or crucifixion? the latter sounds more relevant.

Several stories from Iraq have already been proven false, such as the vastly exaggerated reports of looting at the Iraqi National Museum, and the utterly made-up allegation of gang rapes by US soldiers. The posts provided give no information on which to base the interpretation of the photographs provided. The claims in the article may very well be true, but I am not going to assume so in the absence of other information (maybe THIS is why the US media has "chosen" to ignore the story). Forgive me for giving my own country the benefit of the doubt.

Just remember Sean,

When you travel abroad as a US citizen, others might not give you the benefit of doubt. Then you can thank your president.

The word "insults" is vague and none of us know what was shouted. In American law, there is something called "fighting words", and it is not protected speech. An insult can easily be construed as "fighting words". I leave the rest to your fertile imaginations.

There is a widespread belief in the current US administration, not entirely unfounded, America's reluctance to use force in the past led to the Islamofascist aggression we see today. Bin Laden and other enemies of Islam have stated this over and over. They believed America was weak, and that very belief was the source of thier resolve --that Americans had become soft and pampered, unable or unwilling to stand up and fight. It was a lesson bin Laden extracted from our responses to previous attacks: He expected more of the same. There would be fierce words and perhaps the U.S. would launch a missile or two to some remote places, but there would be little else in terms of retaliation.
The leaders of al Qaeda launched their war against the U.S. in the belief that they were attacking a soft and demoralized enemy. They thought they could proceed with impunity.

Hope this clears things up.

Yet another imaginary analysis of politics of middle-east, based on the lines we have been fed by the WhiteHouse hawks (is Ledeen still around?), CNN and FoxNews since 9/11 to explain our unjustified and illegal aggression. Unlike Milwauken, I tend to believe such logic is "entirely unfounded". Terrorists love further violence and chaos. There is nothing they'd like more than further aggression by U.S. as they will always find new arenas to operate out of (where's Bin Laden?) but such aggression will justify their cause even more to the audience they cater to.

I also object to a term like "Islamofascist" as I have never heard it applied to other extremists like ChristianFascist or JewishFascist or...

Milwauken,
Your comment only clears up one thing: You have a rigid mind whiuch is evolving for the worse.

Can't wait to see Moore's movie on Bush and Bin Laden's families relationship. Should be pretty cool and uplifting.

Quick question: who brought Bin Laden to the geopolitical map? Milwauken, do you happen to know the answer? just curious.

The way to have avoided occupation was for the Iraqi people to have over thrown Saddam. They had over a year to do the job once Bush announced his intentions. So the Iraqi people were too weak or cowardly to do the job.

As we say in America - tough shit. Take care of your own business properly or someone will take care of it for you and when some one else does the hard work for you you might not like the results (evidently).

The best way to get the American troops out quickly is for every one in Iraq to get along, stop sabatoging the public works and oil pipelines and stop harrassing and killing the invaders. The sooner that happens the sooner the occupiers will leave. There is no other way.

The longer the war continues the longer the occupation.

These are the unfortunate facts of life in Iraq. Innovate, adapt, overcome, or die.

The alternative is endless occupation.

It is the choice of the Iraqis. Whatever they choose they will get. War or peace.

visitor,

The way to keep America out of the Middle East is to prevent any attacks on America or threats of attacks from those teritories.

We is pissed as hell after 9/11 and we ain't taken no shit. Zero. Nada. Most unfortunate.

The best way to put a stop to this is to put a stop to threats and attacks. If your government is doing the threatening and attacking change your government or America will.

If it is crazies doing the job reign them in or America will.

You don't understand 9/11 changed everything in the same way Pearl Harbor did 60+ years ago.

The best way to deal with this is the same way good Muslims must deal with the will of Allah. Submit.

The Japanese and Germans were forced to submit almost 60 years ago and are better of because of submission. The same will be true of the Middle East. Had you throttled OBL tings would now be different. You didn't and now things are what they are. Deal with it.

If you don't want to get arrested don't taunt the police. If the current method of governing Iraq displeases you write it up and send it to the nearest American. It is how we do things in democratic America. Taunting the police here will get you trouble. It is a democracy. It is not a disorder.

Adapt to circumstances or resist. Resistance will be met with force. Democracy does not prevent enforced order.

Liberty is not licence to create a public disturbance. If there are things you don't like let your elected representative knowe what you want. If you in the 21st century have no elected representative it is your own damn fault. You have had over 100 years to install representative government on your own. You were too weak or cowardly to do it. It isn't America's fault. it is yours.

My advice is quit with the public complaints and initiate elections now that you have the opportunity to do so. It will work better than taunting the occupiers. They have guns and are willing to shoot if provoked. Whether the provocation is harsh or mild. It is not wise to go down the road of provocation. It does not lead to democracy.

Of course if the Iraqis were currently capable of self government they would already have it. Best to put efforts into learning how to self govern. All else politically in Iraq is a waste.

Faramin old friend, I see you're still falling back on ad hominem attacks when words fail. And Robert: Are you repeating that old saw, uttered by Michael Moore and other deep thinkers, that the US trained and funded bin Laden during the Afghan War? We're all entitled to our own opinions here, but not our own facts.

So unfortunate. M. Simon is the spirit of war, the same as Bin Laden, Saddam, Bush and the rest of the camp. "Submit or be crushed," he preaches. As far as I know that's exactly what the terrorists preach too.

And unfortunately for the Milwauken, the US role in creating the Bin Laden (and other Bin Ladens) is not a somebody's-own fact. Don't try to make it look like a personal opinion. Search the web, read it here, whatever, but don't be rediculous.

Whine about looting, whine about lawlessness, then whine all day about excessive punishment. Under Saddam, all such whining would prompt the whining of a bone saw or the hum of an electrified rod to shove in your derriere.

If you mean to compare the cruelty of US soldiers to the cruelty of the Saddam regime, you are quite clearly kidding yourself.

Shriek that the US should leave, knowing full well they WON'T, and if they DID leave your lives would be a greater hell than they are now. Keep it up, chuckleheads.

To Get Lost,
Bad bad taste. What kind of name have you chosen for yourself! So if you like it, please do: Get Lost.

Get Lost does make a point. When it comes to killing Iraqis, US soldiers are amateurs. In Sadaam's 30 or so years of rule, he killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. In fact, I can think of no one in the last century who killed more Muslims than Sadaam. I think most Americans have trouble understanding a mindset that says it's OK for a shabby Arab dictator to kill Muslims, but it's somehow wrong for the US to put it's own soldiers lives on the line in a war of liberation.

"Get Lost" should just get lost,

Who is talking about Muslims only? You can ignore it if you want, but I cannot forget Vietnamis who were killed by US soldiers when their villages were being flattened, I cannot forget Hiroshima and Nagazaki (2 bombs, about 250,000 Dead people), I cannot forget Israelis Occupying Palestinain lands, killing Palestinian children and destroying Palestinain houses, while continiously receiving US aids. I cannot forget..... .

Saddam killed many of us; Iranains, by his chemical weapons, Saddam was a US friend, so it was OK then, wasn't it? Saddam imposed 8 years of devastating war to our country for which one of the most horrible results was "stabilizing" the criminal regime of Iran. Yes, if we are still struglling with that regime, it is because of that war which was supported by the US.

Saddam killed many kurds by chemical weapons, it was an internal issue, wasn't it? Saddam was going to attack Kwait, US gave the green light: "It is a regional issue and does not concern us".

Don't kid yourself, instead of stubornly defending murderous US administrations, join the humanity and try to stop them from doing it again.

See Milwauken,

Neither my words fail, nore these are just "my facts". Now, go ahead, start justifying it.

AND, today, both US administration and the British government are on defensive about deceaving their own people to gain support for attacking Iraq. It is not a bad idea if you listen to the news, not just CNN or Fox though, and figure out how easily your "democracy" lied to you. See how easily, a 10 year old PHD thesis report can be sold to Amercians like yorself as evidence, how easily "the state of union address" of your president becomes just a piece of fabricated evidences. See, how small, but destructive your rulers are in the eyes of the people of the world today. You want to be part of that small entity? You will not add much to it.

(Sorry for my blunt comments - I wish I could make it sound differntly)

I'm glad you got your words back, Faramin. ;-)
I was a teenager during the Vietnam War, and remember marching in anti-war protests, and arguing with my father over the immorality of the war. I still believe that the US had no overriding interest in Southeast Asia at the time, other than to show the communists that we were ready to stand up to them any time, anywhere. But that was a lousy reason for losing 50,000 young Americans.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were regrettable, but Imperial Japan really did bring that on themselves. It ended the war, and saved a million lives. People who don't understand the first thing about WWII in the Pacific like to point to the atomic bombs as proof of how evil America is. Don't be fooled. Read your history. Lord Wellington said the only thing worse than military victory is military defeat. The world is better off with a pacified, Democratic Japan. But don't take my word for it - ask the Japanese.

What else? Oh, the bit about how Iraq was America's friend in the 1980s. Nice try. Nations don't have friends. They have interests. In the 1980s, it was in America's interest not to see the Ayatolllah win a military victory over Iraq. I think the storming of the embassy in Nov. 1979 might have had something to do with that decision.

As I've said here and in other blogs, I am not a Bush supporter. I would like nothing more than to see W sent packing next year. But it will take more than ad hominem attacks, and rampant negativism to accomplish that. Bush gets away with his war on terror because nobody has come up with a better plan. You can talk all you want about American foreign policy in years gone by, concentrating only on the bad, while overlooking the good. You can call Bush stupid, or criminal. You can carp about Israel, when the real issue is the lack of freedom and modernity in MIddle East. But that's not going to put food on the table, so to speak. If you want to impress me, the American voter, come up with something positive. Propose an alternative. The Arab League has had a gazillion years to get its act together and force Sadaam from his shitty little throne. But did they? And where is the outrage over the mass graves, or the torture chambers, or the meat grinders? When Israel takes out a terrorist, the streets of Cairo erupt in violence. But when another shabby little Arab dictator kills his own people by the score, there is ...silence. Do you remember with Assad murdered 20,000 of his own countrymen back in the early 1980s? Where was the outrage?

A great place to start would be for the Iranian people to kick the mullahs out. That would send a signal to the rest of the world that maybe, just maybe, Arabs and Iranians (sorry to lump you together) are capable of determining their own future, apart from criminal heads of state. It would also be nice if the Arab League could do something constructive, like draft a universal declaration of human rights.

That's about it for now. ;-)

Milwauken,

You say, "I still believe that the US had no overriding interest in Southeast Asia at the time, other than to show the communists that we were ready to stand up to them any time, anywhere. But that was a lousy reason for losing 50,000 young Americans"

Look at you, you don't even mention other lives which were lost by the actions of those "50,000 young Americans".

With this mentality, I am not even sure if I want to impress you, "the American voter". Beside, what could be my reasonable goal in this? To impress you to not vote for Republicans? Who else do you have to vote for other than Democrats? Well, the only difference between them is that one is a bit more stinky than the other one. It is not worth the effort.

Milwauken:

"Nations don't have friends. They have interests." So you are talking plain politics. Then not only an Iranian would have to impress you, the American voter, but YOU, too, would have to impress him/her, the iranian, so that your interests are protected in the region. The US problem in the region (I'm even granting you their presence in the region in the first place) is that they don't seem to be able to figure out that at the end of the day they will be dealing with people. Rulers and Governments come and go, but you'd have to win hearts so that people, ordinary people of the streets, won't attack you. Getting a corrupt ruler/government to let you do what you want isn't difficult; it's finally a few dollars more or less. What happened and is happenning in Iraq is a testimony to this.

What I see in the present American policy in the region is, `let's squeez the lemon for the moment, if the splashes sting our eyes we'll crush it altogether.' This has NOT and is not going to work.

Jeez Faramin, am I supposed to write a book! The Vietnam War wasn't worth a single life. How's that?

American Democracy isn't perfect. You got me on that one. Maybe if we elected Christian fundamentalists who could force us to wear beards (except for the women! I'll write more about that later, Faramin!), and cane the sinners, then we move be a little closer to perfection. But how original would that be?

BHS, I'm not sure what you point is. The mutual interest model of diplomacy works fine. Democracies, for instance, have mutual interests, at least it keeps them from going to war. Can you think of a single instance when two Democracies have made war on each other? Other than the troubles in Northern Ireland, which is a special case, I can't think of one.

I honestly don't know what it's going to take to get the Islamofascists off our back, but I have an idea - veil the women, convert to Islam, kill the Jews, and adopt sharia from Maine to California (sorry Alaska and Hawaii). I'm not buying this argument that the US is responsible for bin Laden and his ilk. bin Ladenism arose out of 400 years of frustration at seeing the culture of Islam eclipsed by the West. American arrogance is only salt in the wounds of a proud people whose own arrogance has caused the modern age to pass them by.

(Sorry for my blunt comments - I wish I could make it sound differently)

My Point Milwauken was this: the mutual interest model of diplomacy works almost fine, I agree, and you have to play your part in it. Both parties have to impress each other via some kind of dialogue which is not always done through (nice) words. (we started commenting on kids in Iraq shouting insults at the US troop, right?). If an iranian has to "impress you, the American voter" (you are being quoted here, just in case) you have to impress him too. S/He may not have (although I doubt it) as much as a role as you do in choosing your government but s/he is the one who will, at the end of the day, determine your fate in his/her own country, no matter what the system is.

About Bin Laden you are really missing the point. Yes, extremism is the result of some long frunstration, always. There are christian extremists who are frustrated by the negligible role christianity has today in the "western" societies. If you nurture them they will grow, and that's what the CIA is guilty of regarding Bin Laden and Taleban. A teeny tiny bit of appreciation there, for example, can overcome some part of the huge gap of mistrust between the iranians (me, for one) and the US administration.

Thanks for setting me straight on that whole bin Laden - Taliban thing. You are of course talking about the US's support of the Mujahadeen in their war against the Soviet invastion of Afghanistan, c. 1980-88. The CIA armed the Muslim rebels with Stinger missles, to blunt the Soviet advantage in air power. Bin Laden was in Afghanistan for part of that time, acting mostly as a fundraiser for the Mujahadeen. It's easy to assume, if one wants, that bin Laden was in the thick of the fighting, with CIA advisors by his side every step of the way. I haven't read any convincing evidence to suggest that this was the case. The Taliban, as far as I can tell, were one of the warring Afghan tribes that put aside their hatred for each other long enough to defeat the Russian Army. After the war, when chaos returned to that tortured land, the Taliban gained the upper hand and put together a government of sorts, which ruled for about the next 10 years or so. I'm still not sure where you're going with the CIA-involvement argument. Are you suggesting that Afghanistan would have been better off under Soviet rule, which was a distinct possibility without the introduction of the Stingers?

I do.

Milwauken: your account of the events that led to the Taleban crushing rule on Afghanustan is not accurate. I'm not going into details, as it's not so relevant but as an example, Taleban did not defeat the Russians alone, as you seem to imply, many groups were involved on that; they gained power quite a few years after the Russians left, defeating an existing government "of some sort" with the green light of some bigger powers.

The relevance of the CIA involvement is the resulting mistrust to the US intentions that has made its way into our background thinking.

Anyways, this will be my last comment here (but don't abuse this info, please!), and this my last statement: If the US thinks that their interests are now in accord with democracies around the world, an important step in that direction would be to show good will. In brief, they should show they are on the people's side. For instance, the US troop must avoid scenes like that kid being arrested for such a light reason while Saddam is still at large. That's what can win hearts, very necessary for an (ordinary) American to be able to walk down a street in Baghdad without fear of attacks.

BHS,

I appreciate your comments; however, I disagree with your suggestion as how US should win the hearts of Iraqis. The fact is that the British are and have always been more effective in winning hearts (call it deceaving) but does that justify their actions? And Iraq is no excpetion. I don't know how we can expect the US (administration) to show good will when it has none. Are we asking them to just fool Iraqis by JUST SHOWING that they care? How could George Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld (and not to mention Wolfowitz) can show true good will, while they don't even know what it is?

I wouldn't call it a good will but, if US and the British want to get out the mess they have created for Iraqis (and themselves), the only way is to get out of Iraq and request the UN to take over. In that case, it will be more accepteable to Iraqis and Saddam will not return to power.

The rest should be decided later on, such as how people in the US (administration) as well as Tony Blair and his gang should be put on trail for breaking all the international laws and most importantly for crime against the humanity, perhaps along side Saddam Hussain.

I agree with Faramin (insert loud gasp here). Kind of. The US will have to do more than show good will to win the war in Iraq. Making nice with the locals makes for warm and fuzzy stories on Fox News, but there are still plenty of nasty Baathists and other assorted criminals who just want to kill Americans. I like the idea of turning everything over to the UN. They'll do a great job. Really.

"We came to bring freedom and democracy - elections and free speech are being sent over later . . ." The lying Bush Regime has become a greater danger to the world than any third world dictator could ever be. Money, greed, inside power deals, destruction of human rights and disrespect for international law have become the halmark of this Regime. I am ashamed to call this man a "leader of the Free World".

Jess,
You might be ashamed of your president but tens
of millions of Americans are glad to have him
as our leader after 9/11. Oh, you might join the
Dixie Chicks as a singer but just get the hell
out of our country.

Wade:

You might want to read this. It is about people who think the way you do; for now:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4151.htm

I read the informationclearinghouse article. Interesting blend of left-wing anti-war mouth foaming, Pat Buchanan style isolationism, and Pat Robertson moral majority blather. The whole article works as entertainment, appealing to ditto heads of all persuasions, but fails as a source of factual information. A little critical thinking is in order. ;-)