Here’s an article I thought you guys would be interested in reading. It’s from one of those human shield people that actually saw how blind he had been. It’s really a good read. Those of you who agree with me I’m sure will enjoy it. The other members here I hope you will understand more as to why this war isn’t that evil afterall.
I wanted to join the human shields in Baghdad because it was direct action which had a chance of bringing the anti-war movement to the forefront of world attention. It was inspiring: the human shield volunteers were making a sacrifice for their political views – much more of a personal investment than going to a demonstration in Washington or London. It was simple – you get on the bus and you represent yourself.
So that is exactly what I did on the morning of Saturday, January 25. I am a 23-year-old Jewish-American photographer living in Islington, north London. I had travelled in the Middle East before: as a student, I went to the Palestinian West Bank during the intifada. I also went to Afghanistan as a photographer for Newsweek.
The human shields appealed to my anti-war stance, but by the time I had left Baghdad five weeks later my views had changed drastically. I wouldn’t say that I was exactly pro-war – no, I am ambivalent – but I have a strong desire to see Saddam removed.
We on the bus felt that we were sympathetic to the views of the Iraqi civilians, even though we didn’t actually know any. The group was less interested in standing up for their rights than protesting against the US and UK governments.
I was shocked when I first met a pro-war Iraqi in Baghdad – a taxi driver taking me back to my hotel late at night. I explained that I was American and said, as we shields always did, “Bush bad, war bad, Iraq good”. He looked at me with an expression of incredulity.
As he realised I was serious, he slowed down and started to speak in broken English about the evils of Saddam’s regime. Until then I had only heard the President spoken of with respect, but now this guy was telling me how all of Iraq’s oil money went into Saddam’s pocket and that if you opposed him politically he would kill your whole family.
It scared the hell out of me. First I was thinking that maybe it was the secret police trying to trick me but later I got the impression that he wanted me to help him escape. I felt so bad. I told him: “Listen, I am just a schmuck from the United States, I am not with the UN, I’m not with the CIA – I just can’t help you.”
Of course I had read reports that Iraqis hated Saddam Hussein, but this was the real thing. Someone had explained it to me face to face. I told a few journalists who I knew. They said that this sort of thing often happened – spontaneous, emotional, and secretive outbursts imploring visitors to free them from Saddam’s tyrannical Iraq.
I became increasingly concerned about the way the Iraqi regime was restricting the movement of the shields, so a few days later I left Baghdad for Jordan by taxi with five others. Once over the border we felt comfortable enough to ask our driver what he felt about the regime and the threat of an aerial bombardment.
“Don’t you listen to Powell on Voice of America radio?” he said. “Of course the Americans don’t want to bomb civilians. They want to bomb government and Saddam’s palaces. We want America to bomb Saddam.”
We just sat, listening, our mouths open wide. Jake, one of the others, just kept saying, “Oh my God” as the driver described the horrors of the regime. Jake was so shocked at how naive he had been. We all were. It hadn’t occurred to anyone that the Iraqis might actually be pro-war.
The driver’s most emphatic statement was: “All Iraqi people want this war.” He seemed convinced that civilian casualties would be small; he had such enormous faith in the American war machine to follow through on its promises. Certainly more faith than any of us had.
Perhaps the most crushing thing we learned was that most ordinary Iraqis thought Saddam Hussein had paid us to come to protest in Iraq. Although we explained that this was categorically not the case, I don’t think he believed us. Later he asked me: “Really, how much did Saddam pay you to come?”
It hit me on visceral and emotional levels: this was a real portrayal of Iraq life. After the first conversation, I completely rethought my view of the Iraqi situation. My understanding changed on intellectual, emotional, psychological levels. I remembered the experience of seeing Saddam’s egomaniacal portraits everywhere for the past two weeks and tried to place myself in the shoes of someone who had been subjected to seeing them every day for the last 20 or so years.
Last Thursday night I went to photograph the anti-war rally in Parliament Square. Thousands of people were shouting “No war” but without thinking about the implications for Iraqis. Some of them were drinking, dancing to Samba music and sparring with the police. It was as if the protesters were talking about a different country where the ruling government is perfectly acceptable. It really upset me.
Anyone with half a brain must see that Saddam has to be taken out. It is extraordinarily ironic that the anti-war protesters are marching to defend a government which stops its people exercising that freedom.
Previous story: Born into an embattled world
Next story: Good soldiers need not be the dogs of war
By: Arabella-Cox - 1st April 2003 at 02:07
You could also say Stalin saved Europe during WWII.
Before WWI the rediculously mediocre attempts by the Tsars and Tsarina’s of Russia to arm itself were pathetic.
During WWI many Russian units went into combat unarmed and told to pick up a rifle if a fellow soldier was injured or to capture a weapon from the enemy.
If such a state of affairs had continued to WWII Russia wouldn’t have had the largest tank army or the largest airforce in the world.
Certainly these forces did not do much… the vast majority of the equipment was obsolete and most of the aircraft were destroyed on the ground and the tanks destroyed or captured, but their industry was already fully developed and working on much better models like the KV-1 and the T-34 on the ground and Migs, Laggs and Yaks and Lavochkins in the air. Without the industrial base created during so many of Stalins 5 year plans Russia would not have lasted very long… especially if they still had to import small arms. By WWII the Soviets were pretty much self sufficient in most weapons… the only problems were getting the industry back into production after being moved east, and a shortage of trucks and transport… the latter alieviated by lend lease and horses.
By: Arabella-Cox - 1st April 2003 at 01:57
“The guy has killed thousands of his own friends, some even very close to him. “
Indeed, quite true… but why would the average joe on the street care about that?
The average Russian had never had democracy before and compared to the stability (economic and social) of a communist government having a mafia run government is quite a shock. Sure standing in a line for food was a religion in Russia under Stalin, but at least you could guarantee you had a job and lots of government subsidies in harsh regions (like siberia).
Would you care very much if your current leader killed all his friends and members of his own family? How would it effect you?
Compare that to a completely mafia run country where there is no law and order, and high unemployment… it doesn’t matter if the shops are full if yo don’t have a job or money to buy food.
Sure I am suggesting they are being selfish here.. but why should the average people on the street be any different from the US government, or the british government or russian or french or german government, or the us, british, russian, french or german people.
By: Arthur - 31st March 2003 at 13:32
Originally posted by seahawk
…if you talk to enough taxi drivers you will find some hating the government in any country…..
Seahawk, you spoilsport. Now everybody knows how lazy reporters get their opinions from “the average man on the street”. Next, you’ll be telling that all those laundry bills are in fact made in the hotel bar….
By: seahawk - 31st March 2003 at 12:36
Well,
this thread is useless. Sure people in Iraq hate Saddam, but I think if you talk to enough taxi drivers you will find some hating the government in any country…..
Look at the facts, tough resistance, few surrenders, civlilians fighting the invaders, no uprisings,….. – support for Saddam can´t be that low.
And even if the Iraqis want Saddam removed, this is no justification for an invasion by forgein countries.
By: Geforce - 31st March 2003 at 11:37
Stalin
You can`t be serious here Garry. Stalin predictable, you knew the rules? The guy has killed thousands of his own friends, some even very close to him. He even executed a commandor of the armed forces (can`t think of his name) after World War II because he was getting too popular among the people.
By: Arabella-Cox - 31st March 2003 at 07:52
Yes… I am anti American… The way I scold those damn imperialists for their evil actions.
Gimme a break. I have no reason to love America, but equally no paticular reason to hate it either.
If you don’t agree with my criticisms that is fine but suggesting that America is perfect and is not interested in oil or money is Bull.
They have said as much in their own military plans for the future. They see no big powerful threat that could defeat them…. just little things. in fact the role they see for their armed forces in the future is to maintain the political and ECONOMIC strength they currently have…. ie I’m on top and I want to stay on top by any means.
If that means ensuring oils supplies remain abundant and cheap by invading a country that is OK… we can claim we are just enforcing UN demands… or failing that we are rescuing the Iraqi people… we are the good guys. It couldn’t possibly be that we are just making sure oil supply is plentiful so that when we go and buy it… from whomever we buy it, they won’t be able to charge us too much.
Good old market forces. Iraq reducing production and Venesuala on strike… uncertainty in the ME… all these things could raise the price of oil. Bush has gambled on a quick war that will enable him to increase oil production overall and reduce prices which should boost the US economy that is so dependant on cheap oil.
“Why has the world stood by like spectators at a mugging and let Saddam go on for so long.”
Why did the world stand around and watch the massacres in Rwanda?, Why does it tollerate world hunger or poverty? Why does it tollerate pollution?
Ask any cop and they’ll tell you the least fun part of the job is going to a domestic. The husband might be beating the sh!t out of his wife 5 times a week but if you go in there and drag of the husband you will often find it is the wife that is hitting you.
If you don’t understand that then you don’t understand why Iraqis that can’t stand Saddam are fighting back.
I can’t speak for anyone else but if a foreign power came in here and tried to change a corrupt government I know which side I’d fight for and it wouldn’t be the foreign side. If my government was screwed then I would be the one that changed it… not some foreign power… no matter how powerful they were.
I think most people would agree… I certainly think that many Americans agree.
Of course you could say they are only doing this for the Iraqi people… did they ask them? Do they even know what the Iraqi people want. In the corruption and mafia violence that filled the vaccuum in Russia after the fall of communism there were many who prayed for the return of a stalin like figure. Not because he was a nice guy, but because they knew the rules under stalin… a gangster can kill you for fun or because you broke his rules… at least under stalin they knew the rules and there was order.
By: Geforce - 30th March 2003 at 09:23
I am not altogether convinced that the USA is acting with 100% altruistic goals in mind, but I am 100% damn sure that the removal of Saddam and his cronies will be a GOOD thing for Iraq and the world.
Everyone keeps telling me that it can only get better for Iraq. Even then, I have my doubts. Toppling a regime is not the same as installing a new one. Will it be like in Afghanistan? Where a muppet government has controll over the capital city, but outside of it, all power lays in the hands of local leaders, mostly thugs? I even heard rumours that the US wants to let the Baath party rule the country, only with another presdident. I think Garry has made a good point comparing this to Germany after WWI. History may show us the US was right, IF and only IF Iraq, within the next ten years becomes a democracy similar to the one in the west, and can stay like this for at least 50 years. And ofcourse, if the Palestinian conflict can be solved.
Western democracy isn’t something you can impose on a nation. America still thinks their kind of democracy is the only decent way to rule a country. If a country wants to become democratic, the people have to chose for it themselves, not some foreign power who doesn’t have the right to be there (spoken in terms of law).
What will happen if a democracy is set up, but the people vote – and this scenario is very realistic I suppose – for an fundamentalist islamist party. A regime which is based on Anti-Americanism. A regime very similar to the one in Iran perhaps? What will America do then? Will it respect the choise the Iraqi’s made, or will it just overthrow the democratic regimes it doesn’t like much like they did in Latin America during the Cold war?
Do not forget, the Sji-iets, from whom the US thought they would cooperate, still haven’t forgotten that US betrayed them after Desert Storm.
Once this war will be won, the US has a huge responsibility. It is now it’s duty to bring it to a good end, and that is peace in the ME. If not, then this while operation will be a big failiure, even if they have captured Saddam Hussein.
By: Mik - 30th March 2003 at 08:08
Anti American before all else
Well GarryB you have certainly made your anti american feelings felt in this thread and many others beside. I am beginning to feel you would be an apologist for the Devil himself regardless of what he did so long as you could have a stab at the USA somewhere. I notice you keep coming back with the ” Why now” argument then tail off into a some oil conspiracy theory. Well I would like to know “why now” as well. Why has the world stood by like spectators at a mugging and let Saddam go on for so long. Perhaps it is because the moral cowards were running the show for so long.
As for oil, well the USA over the last few years has reduced it’s dependancy on ME oil to quite a low level. Even an American controlled Iraq is not going to produce lower or more stable oil prices than what we had before the war drums started beating.
I am not altogether convinced that the USA is acting with 100% altruistic goals in mind, but I am 100% damn sure that the removal of Saddam and his cronies will be a GOOD thing for Iraq and the world. So my view is do not follow blindly but conversly do not criticise blindly based on perosnal hang ups.
As for the UN , well have they ever really been relevant when every decision is based on immediate gain for members. To those who think the French and Germans actually give a damn about international law I suppose you would believe the cheque is in the mail as well. They are behaving totally 100% in their own interest. It just happens that interest is against removal a murdering thug. This does not make them the good guys, it means they have weighed up the good having Saddam going missing against the gain they will make foiling the yanks and have found that giving a whole country another chance does not outweigh short term political gain.
By: Arabella-Cox - 30th March 2003 at 03:59
“I just think it’s a good indication of the fact that perhaps this war, while not the perfect solution (no war ever is), is the best one. 12 years of failed diplomacy (not only by the United States), by the UN in general have shown that nothing would get this man out of power, but force. “
This is what I don’t get. Why remove him from power? Why is it your job to do that? The purpose of desert storm was to remove him from Kuwaite. That was done. Why does the US like to play with its victims after it has had a fight with them… we see it in Cuba, North Korea, Iraq, …even in Yugoslavia the Serbs are the bad guys despite the fact that the Muslims and the Croats did many of the same things to each other and to the Serbs.
If this was about enforcing a UN resolution why bypass the UN to do it?
If this is about saving the Iraqi people why not save them in 91?
If this is a post 11/9 trauma that means you see enemies under every rock and feel safer by lashing out at anyone and everyone then fine… but don’t expect support from anyone but your lackies.
“Geforce, you are right. History will teach us all about this whole subject when the war is long over and the U.S. and U.N. are making attempts to get a stable government into Iraq.”
History will probably show us we were wrong about the US. It isn’t as smart as we thought. The end of WWI led to some pretty unreasonable demands made on Germany. Such unjust demands led to Adolph Hitler and WWII. After WWII the US was credited to have learned from history and corrected the mistake of WWI by rebuilding Japan and Germany after the war, when it is obvious on reflection they were really only interested in building up “their side” for the next round against communism. History has repeated in the ME with unreasonable demands made on Saddam… he didn’t use chem or bio weapons or even nuclear weapons during Desert storm. After he had been bombed by allied aircraft he retaliated with ballistic missiles whose technology was over 30 years old at the time. Apart from one hit on a barraks the results were rather poor… compared to the effectiveness of the Allied bombing campaign that killed far more innocent civilians than Scuds did.
Now Iraq has been invaded and many will die to remove someone we all agree is an a$$hole and a butcher. If decapitation is an acceptable foreign policy then perhaps if someone shoots Blair or Bush they can claim POW status.
America just needs to learn to let go.
Another feature that might have influenced Bush to take on Saddam was Saddams demand in 2000 for payment for oil in Euros instead of the greenback… cheap oil is good for the US economy, but having the US dollar as the international currency is almost as important.
Note most of this post I have assumed oil was not the purpose of this invasion. I believe it is… not to take the oil but to keep the oil flowing… especially now while Venesuala is not pumping oil, and to keep the price of oil down to avoid a recession in the US.
By: PhantomII - 29th March 2003 at 15:03
I just think it’s a good indication of the fact that perhaps this war, while not the perfect solution (no war ever is), is the best one. 12 years of failed diplomacy (not only by the United States), by the UN in general have shown that nothing would get this man out of power, but force.
And for once Geforce, I’m happy to see we do agree on something, however small it may be. This war isn’t about oil. It may seem like it is, but I know deep down that is isn’t.
Geforce, you are right. History will teach us all about this whole subject when the war is long over and the U.S. and U.N. are making attempts to get a stable government into Iraq.
I simply don’t understand why getting Saddam out of power. I know that going into a country and removing a leader isn’t right in most cases, but this case is somewhat different IMHO.
The fact that was didn’t go in after the first Gulf War was a huge mistake. Of course, granted, that wasn’t the objective of the first Gulf War. Personally, though, I feel we should have done it. Well, after Bush Sr. left office we had 8 years of a Democrat. That’s when nothing of that nature will ever get done. We had to wait until Bush Jr. gets into office so that he can finish the job. 9/11 simply opened our eyes. I for one think that my country has let the world into thinking we are a people that aren’t willing to fight for a cause of defend themselves. We are viewed as weak and in many cases ignorant. (I’m sure those of you who think I’m a complete idiot will vouch for that.)
Now, I’m not saying that this war is to prove we aren’t a weak nation. The fact that we are the most powerful country in the world, if we go after a nation like Iraq just to prove that point then we are in the wrong.
This whole war is so shocking for many people in my opinion because no one believe we’d ever do something like given the way that people around the world have come to view America. And now, when we break the mold to get something done that should have been done a long time ago, it is such a shock to people that they automatically think we are the bad guy here.
That’s just not the case.
By: Snapper - 29th March 2003 at 11:28
“(no Iraqui airforce has been operational)”
Such a pity nobody informed a particular Patriot battery.
By: Geforce - 29th March 2003 at 11:09
Well Roger you brought up a very interesting point here. And then thinking the US has the ambition to fight on two fronts: Iraq and North Korea.
By: EHVB - 29th March 2003 at 11:00
I’ll think the leading gang in North Korea is laughing themselves sick by seeing the mess going on in Iraq. This is giving them a carte blanche to do anything they want as they can witness now that the ultra modern equipped USA army can be stopped by a bunch of Iraquis. Invading Iraq , a relatively military poor equipped country (no Iraqui airforce has been operational) is one thing, now making a military fist against a North Korean army of severall millions is something else
By: Snapper - 29th March 2003 at 10:32
Yeah, I read that in last weeks Telegraph. A 23 year old photographer, right? Makes you think huh? If the real reason for the war was, actually, to free people like that from Saddams regime, I would be for it. But it has nothing to do with it, so whats YOUR point?
By: Arabella-Cox - 29th March 2003 at 09:20
Ummm Phantom… if all Iraqis think the same way this taxi driver thinks why isn’t the war over already?
Thanks for bringing this moron to our attention. He goes in thinking all iraqis love saddam… speaks to a couple of people and comes out thinking everyone in Iraq hates saddam… the guy is rediculous.
There have been plenty of Iraqis shown on international media saying they hate saddam and want him removed. I think we all realise that. There have also been lots of footage of Iraqis moving from Jordan to Iraq to fight the Americans… not because they love saddam… because they don’t want anyone else interfering with Iraq… shocking? No… quite understandible really.
Ask an American if they’d support a UN force going in to remove a dodgy US government and what would be the reply? …they may be dodgy but they are American…
You go on about saving the Iraqi people… why now? Why not in 91 when you told them to rise up and they got slaughtered? You almost did it again by invading the country and avoiding the cities… by not entering the cities what do you think will have happened to any uprisings in support of the invasion? Ask someone who is Polish!
Even when he took power he was ruthless… why not save the Iraqi people then?
“I suppose the fact that the United States is actually doing the right thing is something that some of you just can’t possibly accept.”
Is it really the right thing? Which other dictatorships will be toppled by the US government? Why is proximity to oil fields so important when deciding which evil dictator to topple.
Bombing a country to change its government because that government doesn’t suit you is not good, or nice, or an act of friendship.
I look forward to see what stupid rushed “plan for peace” will be forced on the Israelis and the Palestinians to appease the region in return for the US playing god… sorry Skythe but considering Bush’s intelligence and poor judgement it could be quite funny.
By: Arthur - 29th March 2003 at 09:05
… besides Phantom, you know the deal here when you post something? First we ignore it for a while, then you start whining and complaining, and only then you might get a reply. Not much difference between a political subject and a P-40 thread at that.
😉
By: Geforce - 29th March 2003 at 08:39
Phantom. Saddam is not removed yet and democracy is not installed in Iraq so far. The thinktank PNAC (Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz) don’t think it’s America’s task to install democratic regimes in failed states. Belgium also had good intensions when we conquered CONGO. We all know what came of it.
I don’t like Saddam, I know this war is not about oil, it’s about creating stability in the region. But what the US did was very risky. History will show us who was right.
The reason why nobody argues with you is because it’s like talking against a wall.
I suppose the fact that the United States is actually doing the right thing is something that some of you just can’t possibly accept.
Again, history will teach us (and I’ll teach history PII so prepare for a new wave of leftist liberal anti-americanism 😀 :D).
By: PhantomII - 29th March 2003 at 01:59
Hmmm….
Gee, this is interesting. The second someone posts an article that reveals the point of view of an actual Iraqi who thinks the war is something that should happen, no one who usually argues against my views has anything to say.
Perhaps this is something that some of you don’t believe?
I suppose the fact that the United States is actually doing the right thing is something that some of you just can’t possibly accept.
Sign In
March 28, 2003 at 5:43 am