The Arab Spring: Anyone else thrilled with the wave of peace that's going to go across the globe?

IM estatic! lets get rid of the military and save us Trillions each year! Free oollege, healthcare, and hookers for everyone!!!

Are you with Occupy Wall St ?

Can someone explain to me why the media takes for granted the notion that just because chaos reigns over in the Middle East that the majority of people are in favor of a secular democracy?

still asleepmostpeople wrote:

85% of Iraqis polled last month said they remember Saddam Hussein's reign as a time of stability and wish their country was like that now.

I guess these weren't part of that 85%:

...and this:

Use in the Iran-Iraq War, 1983-1988

August 1983: Haij Umran — Mustard , fewer than 100 Iranian/Kurdish casualties

October-November 1983: Panjwin — Mustard, 3,000 Iranian/Kurdish casualties

February-March 1984: Majnoon Island — Mustard, 2,500 Iranian casualties

March 1984: al-Basrah — Tabun, 50-100 Iranian casualties

March 1985: Hawizah Marsh — Mustard & Tabun, 3,000 Iranian casualties

February 1986: al-Faw — Mustard & Tabun, 8,000 to 10,000 Iranian casualties

December 1986: Um ar-Rasas — Mustard, 1,000s Iranian casualties

April 1987: al-Basrah — Mustard & Tabun, 5,000 Iranian casualties

October 1987: Sumar/Mehran — Mustard & nerve agent, 3,000 Iranian casualties

March 1988: Halabjah & Kurdish area — Mustard & nerve agent, 1,000s Kurdish/Iranian casualties

April 1988: al-Faw — Mustard & nerve agent, 1,000s Iranian casualties

May 1988: Fish Lake — Mustard & nerve agent, 100s or 1,000s Iranian casualties

June 1988: Majnoon Island — Mustard & nerve agent, 100s or 1,000s Iranian casualties

July 1988: South-central border — Mustard & nerve agent, 100s or 1,000s Iranian casualties

Lovely guy that Saddam.

Alan

USA lost wrote:

This would be funny, if it weren't so tragic. One Russian newspaper is referring now to the Iraqi war as the "Dawn of the Shiite Empire." Instead of igniting a pro-democratic revolution throughout the Middle East, Iraq War II is an act of arson that will ignite the fires of Islamic fundamentalism, and perhaps even prop up a neighboring Iranian fundamentalist regime that had been facing increasing domestic resistance.

While I concur with this to a degree and Iraq could certainly fracture into a triad civil war in our absence, particularly with intensifying Iranian meddling, where the fukk was the Obama Administration when the Iranian youth were starting a coup (the first one of the "Arab Spring" as I recall) back in 2009 and even women were seen protesting in the streets? That was an enormous missed opportunity that will have the gravest consequences of all, particularly as they are the region's chief sponsor of Islamofascism and terrorism. And yet, we felt the need to go back into Afghanistan and meddle in Egyptian and Libyan affairs, especially when Libya had openly given up WMD in the wake of Iraq (though Libya is understandable given Lockerbie).

Off the Grid wrote:

60% of Egyptians want sharia law. Algeria has spent 2 decades suppressing a fundamentalist movement. Whether the US likes it or not, secular dictators are able to achieve the majority of the US' policy goals in these countries (control potential threats, deliver resources, secure borders with allies). A "Bigman" seems to be the natural political outcome, so why not somebody who supports some US values like womens' rights, property rights, etc.

Hussein, Mubarak, etc. will probably be seen as the better alternative when this is all over.

OH come on now... democracy and freedom are breaking out all over...

still asleepmostpeople wrote:

85% of Iraqis polled last month said they remember Saddam Hussein's reign as a time of stability and wish their country was like that now.

Runningart2004 wrote:

I guess these weren't part of that 85%:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

...and this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program

Use in the Iran-Iraq War, 1983-1988

....

Lovely guy that Saddam.

Alan

Zogby estimated that 650k people have died as a result of the invasion of Iraq. Who are you to say that their lives are less important than the people Hussein killed?

Democracy is not part of the political DNA of Iraq (or the region). Wishing it were so will only result in more people being killed.

There won't be peace until all the towelheads haven their machine guns taken from them. That could take a while. Those people were made for fighting, not for peace.

Did you happen to notice that each and every one of the events you listed took place while Saddam was on the US payroll?

still asleepmostpeople wrote:

85% of Iraqis polled last month said they remember Saddam Hussein's reign as a time of stability and wish their country was like that now.

That's funny ... I was personally talking to well over 100 Iraqis, IPs, IAs, sheikhs, teachers and principals, farmers, shopkeepers last year ... and I did not talk to a single one who was not glad Saddam was gone. A few felt their local area was not as stable as it was in the past due to the randomness of IEDs, indirect fire, and political executions, but things were still better than they were under Saddam. I guess every person I talked to must have been part of your 15%.

If all these countries are run by Islamic law, they can kiss peace goodbye.

Pleeease don't cite an article from brietbart, whoever did that. far from non biased.

As for democracy in the Arab Spring countries, one could look to Tunisia. Today they had about 80% turnout in their first democratic election ever. As to be expected an Islamist party are appearing to have won a majority in the election, it was only a Moderate Islamist party. They did not win enough seats to form a majority so now they must build a coalition with a Secular party. I think you will find this to be the trend, hopefully, in the elections to follow.

CarolinaRunner wrote:

That's funny ... I was personally talking to well over 100 Iraqis, IPs, IAs, sheikhs, teachers and principals, farmers, shopkeepers last year ... and I did not talk to a single one who was not glad Saddam was gone. A few felt their local area was not as stable as it was in the past due to the randomness of IEDs, indirect fire, and political executions, but things were still better than they were under Saddam. I guess every person I talked to must have been part of your 15%.

Thanks for the direct input (I know that it is sometimes hard to tell on these boards but I am saying this in all sincerity).

One question for you - I assume that you are/were associated with the US military to be talking with so many Iraqis. No? Please correct me if I am wrong. Also, were most/all of these folks from one area? Perhaps you are not free to talk about which area.

At any rate, any description of your first-hand experience is appreciated. LRC folks sift through a lot of garbage. It becomes worthwhile every now and then when someone comes on these boards who actually knows something. Hoping you are someone who does.

Thanks.

The New UncleB wrote:

Did you happen to notice that each and every one of the events you listed took place while Saddam was on the US payroll?

Not to worry UncleB. Saddam allocated that money at $25,000 a lot per each homicide bombing of an Israeli target. So you can sleep peacefully at night.

Join the club guy. The Iraqi warlords, Afghan warlords, Saudi oil billionaires, Hamid Karzai, Turkish Media Companies, and Red Crescent, the late Steve Jobs, the late Paul Anka, al-Maliki, and maybe even Doug Flutie, etc. pay the families of Palestine White Semitic Freedom Fighters and Palestine White Caucasisn Freedom Fighters in Israel, Palestine and elsewhere a $50,000 death benefit.

Hell even Iran, pays the Semitic Palestinians a dead benefit, and Iranian Shiia hates the half-breed brown Arab Sunni/Semitic race with a passion.

Abu Ghraib area of Baghdad Province. Interesting because our area of operations actually had a slight Sunni majority - about 55% Sunni/45% Shia. It gave us a chance to interact with both sects daily. Overall Iraq is about 65% Shia/35% Sunni and Baghdad Province is about 70% Shia/30% Sunni. Saddam was a Sunni so you would think he would have had some reasonable support in the region. He didn't. The Iraqi Army members (who were mostly Shia) were obviously glad he was gone but so were the Sons of Iraq members in the area who were Sunni. There were certainly people who were sick of seeing US troops in their streets and wanted us gone but most felt all hell could break loose if we did leave. They felt the government wasn't strong enough to support itself and they were probably right. We'll find out in two months.

There were still a lot of IEDs that did not discriminate when they kill. Iraqi Army, Iraqi Police, US Soldier, innocent civilian who was in the wrong place at the wrong time - it didn't matter. It can be frightening for people to go to the local market when it may be the last thing you ever do. Americans just do not know what it is like to live like that. The bombing of the Murrah Building in OK City was a shock to us. Imagine this type of bombing happening on a relatively frequent basis. People there live in fear but they go about their daily lives anyway. Election Day is probably the most dangerous day to leave your house but the people turn out on droves to vote. I don't know numbers off the top of my head but I would say the voting percentage is a lot higher than in the US. They truly appreciate their recent right to elect their nation's leaders.

The threat of IEDs did not exist during Saddam's tenure but he made life a nightmare for those who opposed him. Take a good look at the recent videos of Qaddafi's final moments. Opponents of Saddam faced a similar fate in many cases. Even the diehard Sunnis in our area recognized that Saddam had devastated the country by going to war with Iran, invading Kuwait and trying to face off against the strongest coalition of nations since WWII, and trying to take on the US again in 2003. An SoI told me he couldn't understand why Saddam did not just let the UN inspect since he didn't have any WMDs to hide. He would probably have avoided the whole war that way and would still be in power. Instead his decision lead Iraq into another eight years of war and the chaos that still exists. It makes me wonder if this is how some Nazis felt when Hitler decided to invade Russia. They had to think, "What they hell is he doing?" This is how many Sunnis feel today about Saddam.

Obviously the Shia Iraqis hated Saddam, especially after he invaded Shia-dominated Iran, but even most Sunnis feel he lead the country into devastation. War with Iran for the entire decade of the 80's, war with the US in 1991, UN sanctions throughout the 90's, and then another 8-year war in 2003. The nation has been at war or under sanctions for 30 years, all because of Saddam. Even the Sunni Iraqis understand this.

Nice to hear yes.

But the big prize is Palestine / Israel given 7 million people are in limbo trapped in Israeli Gulags.

Once Palestine is freed the Arab Spring can really take off.

Sagarin wrote:

The New UncleB wrote:

Did you happen to notice that each and every one of the events you listed took place while Saddam was on the US payroll?

Not to worry UncleB. Saddam allocated that money at $25,000 a lot per each homicide bombing of an Israeli target. So you can sleep peacefully at night.

Thanks for responding to a serious post pointing out that Saddam murdered all those people while on the US payroll, thus underlinging the ridiculousness of the effort to paint the US assault on Iraq resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths as some kind of noble, humanitarian effort, by posting your own paranoid fantasy, informed by your Zi*n*st conditioning. In other words, you'e just not very bright

"Obviously the Shia Iraqis hated Saddam, especially after he invaded Shia-dominated Iran, but even most Sunnis feel he lead the country into devastation. War with Iran for the entire decade of the 80's, war with the US in 1991, UN sanctions throughout the 90's, and then another 8-year war in 2003. The nation has been at war or under sanctions for 30 years, all because of Saddam. Even the Sunni Iraqis understand this".

Actually, it has been under assault by USA Zion&st policies for over 30 years. The USA backed Saddam's attack of Iran and then funded both sides throughout the 1980s to keep that war going and to maximize the kills. This was followed by Gulf war I, where Saddam was painted as a monster for invading Kuwait -- a nation that was, after all, stealing Iraqi oil and the US secretly gave Saddam the okay before double-crossing him (look into it -- the Zion*st mainstream western media left these out of the narrative). Next, the "sanctions" of the 1990s that resulted in the death of at least one million Iraqis. Then, finally, the invasion and occupation begin in 2003 -- sold as a response to 911 (something Iraq had nothing to do with) and to root out WMDs (which did not exist).

Let's put the blame where it belongs