*DAMN R6 Forum

I find the news reports of widespread looting and even vigilante justice against suspected members of the irregular army very distressing.

It is one thing if they were looting Saddam's and govermental property, but they are looting random civilian's goods as well.  And they are beating people (probably killing) that they suspect to be on Saddam's side...like freaking McCarthyism on a deadly scale.

I know that these actions are against Islamic moral code, which leads me to the conclusion that a good number of Iraqis are immoral little bastards.  Sorry, but nothing excuses that kind of behavior.

Similarly, it is equally immoral when similar things happen during riots here in the US (well, the looting more than the killing happens).

Most of the anarchy I have seen has targeted symbols of authority and power, with some residual anarchy focused on rich targets (which the troops have gone in and protected).

If you were oppressed for almost your entire lifetime (well in your case it would be your entire lifetime), you would be reacting the same way and you would be overjoyed with relief that much better days are ahead. The rioting you see is just the release of pent up hatred for the former Government of Saddam - it shouldn't last long.

From what I have seen, we are sending in the MP's to establish a security zone around the major cities and to begin training a enw police force once everything is under control.

If you know your history you'd understand that this happens after an oppressing government has been removed from power. In Afghanistan the exact same thing happened. South Korea did it when their shit for brains dictator was removed from power during the Korean War. Americans did it during the Revolutionary War, looting and polluting loyal English shops. It's sign of their hatred to the oppressing government. These Iraqi's are trying to send the message that the idea of Saddam is to be removed from their society immediately. Those Iraqi's that are being beaten for believing in Saddam were probably standing in the crowd praising his name. And since this mass was screaming, "There is only one God, and the enemy of God is Saddam", it would be their reaction to someone praising his name.

Again and again crying heart liberals come to these forums to whine, bitch, and moan about civilian deaths. The world isn't going to be a utopia. Death is inevitable especially during an armed conflict. Shit happens so live with it.

True Py.  But people who cause shit to happen should be punished.  It's not acceptable to start a war just to get away with murder. . .

Now now, we know that wasn't the intent of this war. We wanted Saddam alive so he could rot his ass in a U.S. prison (oh the irony). His death would be an added bonus. Again, civilian deaths happen. Yes its disgusting. Yes its inhuman, but its a course of war we can't avoid. A stray bomb, bullet, or shell is bound to wound or kill an innocent catching the action of a heated battle. It's sad that things like this have to happen, but remember there's a greater cause at hand. 25,000,000 Iraqi's are now free and loving it.

By your standards, yes.  However, I ask why 25 million of them didn't revolt previously?  That's a force that could have defeated Hussein if the determination had been there.  Plenty of oppressed people throughout history have had a revolution when they didn't like their previous government.  

Apparently, the Iraqis weren't willing to face the bloodshed such an action would cause - at least on their own.  So for you to argue that they desired the US to come in and do it for them, also causing bloodshed, seems a little out of touch.  The US had no responsibility nor right to overthrow Saddam - whether the people are happy now or not.  The fact remains that those citizens would have sacrificed their own lives to revolt if they had found such an action fitting.  The US robbed them of that choice.

Loud, while I'm sure there are some who would have mounted a suicidal revolt, the vast majority wouldn't want to risk their lives for something that would have had little chance of succeeding. Despite our trouncing of it, the Iraqi army was pretty formidable, especially against a ragtag bunch of rebels. Not to mention that any hint of revolt under Saddam's regime led to a swift death to those involved.

I'm sure if you polled a bunch of Iraqis, the majority would be in favor of the US removing Saddam. Even if it meant a few thousands accidental civilian deaths, many more innocents have died under Saddam's rule.

Py, a history of immoral reactions doesn't excuse future immoral reactions.

Like I said, these people are looting everything and anything that they can, it isn't limited to things associated with Saddam.  There are perfectly innocent people who also hate Saddam who are having their stores or residences wrecked and objects stolen.  There are people who hate Saddam being beaten or killed because others suspect they are in his armies.  This is not behavior indicative of good people.

its the reactionary phase of the iraqi revolution (and yes, i term it thus because radical changes have been made in existing policy and social order) and as py said, it ALWAYS happens. What, did you expect for everyone to be absolutely behaved at this point?

and also, loud.. you ask why they didn't revolt previously? well, maybe it had something to do with them fearing he'd gas them all, as he had definitely proven himself capable of doing so in the past?

Whether its reactionary or not, that doesn't make it acceptable.  

And the point is, the people didn't revolt.  Change was brought from outside - it's really as though the US conquered Iraq.  Often conquered peoples are joyful at first - any change is good.  But the point is, people throughout history have been afraid their leaders might kill them if they rebelled.  But they did so anyway - because freedom was most important to them.  However terrible Saddam is, he's not God - the people could have done this on their own if it were really such a priority

that's incredulous, how on earth would scattered groups of people in a country really expect to organize a mass, successful movement to topple a government with highly destructive weapons, especially when they themselves are barely armed????

this isn't 18th century france, it's not musket to musket, man vs man.... if the iraqi people revolted it would be fist vs scud missle, man vs machine.

and you say "if the iraqi people haven't already revolted then it must not be their priority.."

forgive this lest it seem like a cheap shot, but that is so ridiculous. Just because one doesn't take action doesn't mean he doesn't want to. (i'm thinking hamlet here) You can't say that most of the Iraqi people could have revolted, but decided not to JUST BECAUSE they had other things on their minds. What else could possibly be more important in their minds that it would mask their want for freedom? It's natural instinct to desire freedom... how do you divert your mind from your oppression while enslaved?

They could take the same action most revolutionaries take...guerilla warfare.  Just pick off various people the best you can.  Makes it real hard for anyone to be targeted, yet it manages to have great effect over time.

I believe Saddam's secret police was one of the most brutal and "efficient" in modern history, I don't think you could organize a guerilla against a regime without morals, it would probably just have put the whole neighbourhood in front of a wall and made a long red line on it (at head-height).

Ln...if your son, daughter, mother, or father were to be wisked away in the middle of the night and raped, beaten, or murdered...You'd probably have anti-saddam sentiment. However, if you were told that everything you posses and everyone you knew were to be destroyed...would you rise up? If you were told that Saddam's power is ultimate and he controls every aspect of life...would you have somewhere to turn to find support? If you were living off $1 U.S. dollar a week..would you have the strength or means to begin a protest?

The Iraqi's needed the outside help from us in order to gain the freedom's taken away from them.

Bondo...you're the one to talk about morals?
(sarcasm) If this country isn't moral enough for you maybe you should take a one way trip to Europe. How about Iraq even? They have tons more morals than we do. Man, Saddam's such a great guy, he's the purest person I've ever seen. (/sarcasm)

You must really hate humanity bondo....you must hate our very existence. Did daddy abuse you as a child? Look...everyone has their own opinion of morals these days. The morals of the past no longer exist. You're a fine embodiment of that example.

What's that supposed to mean Py, are you saying Europeans have bad morals? And Iraqis have bad morals? You really have to get off your pedestal dude, it's not good for ya.

If you want to talk about morals of the past, many Americans have beliefs that by modern standards are downright puritanical. Yet they are still willing to look away or not care when their government does atrocious immoral things. I think there are few, if any, governmental institutions today that have any acceptable level of morality, US, Mideast, and Europe all included. There are some European exceptions, but they are mostly the smaller, less powerful countries.

Py, I won't lie, I agonize over how bad humans are as a species.  They are the cause of one of the four mass extinctions in the history of the planet, with the others being meteor impact and two ice ages.  They have raped the environment for self-interest, they through history are extremely violent, always waging wars and pursuing other immoral actions.  So yes, Py, I have my reasons for thinking human's are not to be though of as awesome things.

With that said I don't know what that has to do with my criticism of Iraqis for expressing immoral action when there is no control over them.  And I don't get your sarcastic bit.