The Official Former President Trump thread

[Savage Henry]

So those that say that Christians who are now being persecuted that were previously allowed to practice are liars?
Women who previously worked in good jobs who no longer are allowed to are liars?
Women beaten for not wearing appropriate clothing are liars?
The takeover by religous leaders who want to see IS in control is not happening?
Why did take 12 years after gassing for the evil twins of Bush and Blair to invade?
I don'tread The Guardian nor do I read rags like The Daily Mail who want you to believe everything is rosy.
Basically what you are saying is that observers who state things are worse for the average Iraqi are liars or Saddam supporters?
 

You’ll need to tell me where and specifically where those first three are happening. A basic study of Iraq shows systematic ghettoisation of Christians. Christians are not being persecuted by Islamic State any more or less than some Muslims sects are. It’s not a competition to see who has suffered enough. But even still, Islamic State predates US intervention in Iraq.

I know of no Iraqi religious leader who wishes IS to be “in control”.

But I did state, in certain pockets of Iraq, life has got far, far worse.

I completely agree. Those 12 years were scandalous. Let’s not pretend Bush and Blair were acting out of genuine compassion.

What I am saying is that the story of Iraq has four perspectives (at least) and for most of those (including a feminist perspective which I completely overlooked; thank you for calling me out on that), the 20th century was completely brutal.

[NotThePars]

Charting the US intervention from 2003 does a major disservice to the brutal economic sanctions imposed on the country from the early 90s. It's also worth remembering that parts of Iraq have fallen under the sway of Islamic State and had astronomical murder levels a decade ago where even US troops wouldn't leave the Green Zone for fear of being killed. Saddam's Iraq was shite for millions and post-war Iraq has remained incredibly shite for millions.

 

[TheProgressiveLiberal]

Mr. Marx,

That guy in Chile was basically Castro or Chavez. He was on his way to destroying every institution that he couldn't personally control, and with a minority democratic mandate. Other parts of the society fought back. 

I don't get into defending 3rd world dictators, but I will criticize the communists. They were trying to take the country down a path of ruin.

I'm not swampy. I grew up in the Good Ole US of A.

 

Edited October 4, 2017 by TheProgressiveLiberal

[KarlMarx]

Just now, TheProgressiveLiberal said:

That guy in Chile was basically Castro or Chavez. He was on his way to destroying every institution that he couldn't personally control, and with a very minority democratic mandate. Other parts of the society fought back. 

I don't get into defending 3rd world dictators, but I will criticize the communists. They were trying to take the country down a path of ruin.

Your alleged country kept in place a murderous right wing dictator.

Your alleged country backs up dictators as long as they are right wing and only murder left wing commoners.

You are like the country you pretend to come from plain bloody idiotic.

[welshbairn]

1 hour ago, Savage Henry said:

*Inhales sharply.*  

 

I'm not targeting you at all, and I hope this doesn't come off as personal, but I'm kind of sick of this idea that somehow Iraq was a bohemian outpost up until 2003 and then the Americans came along and ruined everything by creating Islamic State.   I've spent the last three years working and studying in Iraq, both in the Kurdish areas, the Yezidi areas and, intermittently, Baghdad.  Don't believe what you read in Zero Hedge, or even the Guardian, necessarily.  It's an essentially masochistic endeavour.

There are, currently, three real centres of conflict in Iraq.  1. Baghdad.  Outside the green zone, it's a bit of a mess, although it has been a couple of months since the last bombing.  You aren't supposed to go out without a detail, if you are a Western worker, but it's possible.  It's not terribly pleasant, though, and I wouldn't recommend it.  If you can go down to the marshes, you really should though.    2. Mosul.  Mosul is home to Arabs, both Christian and Muslim.  That puts it at a bit of odds with its surrounds, which is largely Kurdish and secular.  It is pretty much abandoned, as it was the last retreat of Islamic State (which is not the creation of the CIA, or Mossad but has in fact existed in various guises since the sixties and was a religious reaction, on the part of Western educated Islamic clerics who derided things like the jitterbug as decadent and depraved.)  The third is Kirkuk, which is essentially contested territory and has been for centuries.  There's a whole pile of oil there.

For about 400 years, up until 1916, all of these places were ruled from Turkey, as part of the Ottoman Empire.  After 1916, the infamous Sykes-Picot agreement which followed the collapse of the Empire, these areas were collectively called Iraq, and divided into four distinct governates.  Those governates essentially served as means to provide Britain, Italy and France with oil and dates and olives and suchlike.   International trade was plentiful, and folks got rich, both in the West and in Iraq. A minority, granted, but still.  Money and trade and intellectualism was flowing.   It also provided thousands of jobs and became centres of academic excellence.  But yeah, it's largely fair to say that they were playthings of the west.  It's not a great time in terms of Western foreign policy, I grant you.    During the second half of the 20th century, Western hegemony paled and the UK and France were effectively forced to give over an element of self-governance, in what was and is essentially a federal Iraq.  It was always unstable, and at some point, Saddam Hussein came along and seized power.  In Baghdad, he set about plans to quite literally exterminate any opposition.  He would use torture,  state brutality and cultural oppression.  This ghettoised Iraq.  The Jews and Christians were forced to repatriate or flee to the North.    So for the most part, the Iron Fist of the Ba'athist Party kept an oppressive list on what was a genuinely cosmopolitan part of the world.

Along came Iran, and Kuwait, and this polarised the Persian areas of Mesopotamia with the Arabic areas. This isn't always a good or a bad thing, but Persian cultures and Arabic cultures are quite distinct, and at times polarising.   Well, Saddam didn't like this, and gassed everyone.  If he didn't gas them, he'd torture them.  The 80s were a really, really shite time to be Iraqi.  Not through any foreign intervention (notwithstanding the cultural divide I refer to) but entirely because Baghdad attempted to coerce an Iraqi-Arab nationalism in areas which were neither Iraqi or Arabic.  This came to a head around 1988, in Halabja, when  Hussein embarked on systemic and indiscriminate bombing of his own people, as well as the Kurds, who by now had developed quite the nationalist identity.  Saddam didn't like this, and exacted his revenge.  By 1990, the West couldn't sit back as millions of Kurds and Christians and Muslims were forced to flee over the mountains towards Iran, and, in one of the few genuinely moral pieces of military intervention since WW2, the US and the UK created a Kurdish safe haven.  Since then, the Kurdish diaspora have returned, the Muslims who have fled IS (which was partly a direct response to the toppling of the Saddam and the hopelessly short sighted 'handover' - but, get this, actually used to go around killing people under his leadership as well) have found a home, and the West has been able to effectively destroy IS as a fighting army.    And what do you know, in the areas other than the four hotspots of violence, Iraq is functioning pretty well.  People are free to practice whatever religion they choose, vote for whomever they wish, and do all sorts of things otherwise forbidden in the rest of the Middle East.  You might want to look at the Fulbright Scholarship, Access English, Iraqi Young Leaders Programme, and other academic and humanitarian projects funded by the US Department of State.  You might want to look at the access to uncensored media, movies and music.  You might want to look at the bars, clubs and international tourism in Iraq, too, much of which is supported or funded by the good ol' US of A.  

So, if you want to say that Iraq (a very modern construct) was better off before the Americans became involved, you are basically harking back to a time when a dictator was routinely firing chemical weapons at dissidents, where police actually served as instigators of domestic terror, where Iraqi dissidents were slaughtered, and where religious minorities were forced into learning Arabic, into attending political indoctrination and were effectively banned from receiving international media.   There are Iraqis who would agree with you, but they are the ones who lost power after the handover and who have seen society swing 180 degrees from their previous existence.  

This is not at all to say that Western foreign policy in the ME is benign.  Far from it.  But Iraq, notwithstanding the utter clusterfuck of the handover which has made life almost unconscionably cruel for relatively isolated parts of the country, is a relative success.

I've got a few issues with this, not least what the wonders of "Fulbright Scholarship, Access English, Iraqi Young Leaders Programme, and other academic and humanitarian projects funded by the US Department of State,... the access to uncensored media, movies and music... the bars, clubs and international tourism in Iraq, too, much of which is supported or funded by the good ol' US of A." have done for the Sunni population. 

And as evil as Saddam was he did not " routinely fire chemical weapons at dissidents" , that would be absurd, where would he aim them? He used them in the Iran war on the battlefield, and once against Kurdish civilians at Halabja, as you mentioned. Christians had very little trouble until after the American and British invasion, now there are very few left. Saddam's Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz was a Christian, for instance.

Edited October 4, 2017 by welshbairn

[KarlMarx]

3 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

I've got a few issues with this, not least what the wonders of "Fulbright Scholarship, Access English, Iraqi Young Leaders Programme, and other academic and humanitarian projects funded by the US Department of State,... the access to uncensored media, movies and music... the bars, clubs and international tourism in Iraq, too, much of which is supported or funded by the good ol' US of A." have done for the Sunni population. 

And as evil as Saddam was he did not " routinely fire chemical weapons at dissidents" , that would be absurd, where would he aim them? He used them in the Iran war on the battlefield, and once against Kurdish civilians at Halabja, as you mentioned. Christians had very little trouble until after the American and British invasion, now there are very few left. Saddam's Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz was a Christian, for instance.

Saddam's Iraq was indeed the only Middle East state where Christians were allowed to practice freely.

[John Lambies Doos]

Saddam's Iraq was indeed the only Middle East state where Christians were allowed to practice freely.

I believe there were also several females on his government cabinet

[KarlMarx]

3 minutes ago, John Lambies Doos said:

 

I believe there were also several females on his government cabinet

 

The only took him out when he stopped doing what he was told by the land of the free (as long as you are white).

[Savage Henry]

I've got a few issues with this, not least what the wonders of "Fulbright Scholarship, Access English, Iraqi Young Leaders Programme, and other academic and humanitarian projects funded by the US Department of State,... the access to uncensored media, movies and music... the bars, clubs and international tourism in Iraq, too, much of which is supported or funded by the good ol' US of A." have done for the Sunni population. 

And as evil as Saddam was he did not " routinely fire chemical weapons at dissidents" , that would be absurd, where would he aim them? He used them in the Iran war on the battlefield, and once against Kurdish civilians at Halabja, as you mentioned. Christians had very little trouble until after the American and British invasion, now there are very few left. Saddam's Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz was a Christian, for instance.

 

Again, my post was never claiming that everyone in Iraq was benefiting. Precisely the opposite. My issue was the idea that the USA has made Iraq worse full stop.

 

It’s one of the key failings of the handover, and a major, major problem in civil society (or lack thereof) is a sectarian bias. That said, all of the programmes are open to both Sunni and Shi’a; a division which is very marked in certain parts of the country and almost unnoticeable in others. It goes hand in hand with economic imbalances as well as religious differences.

 

Very few Christians? In Baghdad, certainly. Not elsewhere. Tariq Aziz was a monied Christian with party political connections. Christian Arabs were generally forced to move North as Saddam became increasingly unhinged. Iraq’s cities are, to a greater or lesser extent, ghettoised. But that’s not an affect of Western intervention. In recent years, Christians have been able (rightly or wrongly) to present themselves as a persecuted minority in a way closed off to Muslims. I have issues with that in some ways, but it’s besides the point. It certain explains migration rates though.

 

ETA: I believe, although I may be wrong, that it’s generally been established that there were as many as 30 separate uses of targeted chemical attacks on Kurdish villages over a period of years in the mid to late 80s. The US Department of State has overseen a cataloguing of those attacks, i will try and find them in the morning. Halabja was merely the nadir, for want of a better word. I’d say, relatively speaking, that counts as routine usage.

[welshbairn]

10 minutes ago, KarlMarx said:

Saddam's Iraq was indeed the only Middle East state where Christians were allowed to practice freely.

Well, Syria in the old days, Egypt's getting more difficult but still a large population, and Lebanon where they're very prominent come to mind. Quite a few Palestinian Christians on the West Bank, and a fair few in Iran.

[Zetterlund]

10 minutes ago, KarlMarx said:

Saddam's Iraq was indeed the only Middle East state where Christians were allowed to practice freely.

Syria also.

[KarlMarx]

1 minute ago, welshbairn said:

Well, Syria in the old days, Egypt's getting more difficult but still a large population, and Lebanon where they're very prominent come to mind. Quite a few Palestinian Christians on the West Bank, and a fair few in Iran.

Yet in all these countries they opleny state a feeling of persecution.

They were not persecuted in Iraq before Uncle Sam's interference.

[John Lambies Doos]

Syria also.

I'm sensing a pattern here. Mmmmm

[Savage Henry]

Yet in all these countries they opleny state a feeling of persecution.
They were not persecuted in Iraq before Uncle Sam's interference.

Being able to worship freely is only worth so much if you have to leave your house in Baghdad and move half way across the country.

There were - and I guess still are - churches in Libya.

[KarlMarx]

3 minutes ago, Savage Henry said:

 

Being able to worship freely is only worth so much if you have to leave your house in Baghdad and move half way across the country.

There were - and I guess still are - churches in Libya.

 

You are determined to say the people who are feeling persecuted by Uncle Sam's interference are either liars or Saddam supporters.

Pretty sure these people being persecuted for being Christian or women being beaten for not wearing burkhas are being truthful.

[bob the tank]

Mr. Marx,
That guy in Chile was basically Castro or Chavez. He was on his way to destroying every institution that he couldn't personally control, and with a minority democratic mandate. Other parts of the society fought back. 
I don't get into defending 3rd world dictators, but I will criticize the communists. They were trying to take the country down a path of ruin.
I'm not swampy. I grew up in the Good Ole US of A.
 

Posting style ----- Swampy

[Zetterlund]

6 minutes ago, KarlMarx said:

Yet in all these countries they opleny state a feeling of persecution.

They were not persecuted in Iraq before Uncle Sam's interference.

Not sure about the rest, but Syria has just elected a Christian as their parliament speaker. After the government reclaimed Aleppo in December the old square was full of locals dressed as Santa Claus dancing round a huge Christmas tree. 

[Savage Henry]

You are determined to say the people who are feeling persecuted by Uncle Sam's interference are either liars or Saddam supporters.
Pretty sure these people being persecuted for being Christian or women being beaten for not wearing burkhas are being truthful.

I’ve not said any of that.

You are yet to show me where and when these things are happening.

[AUFC90]

*Inhales sharply.*  

 

I'm not targeting you at all, and I hope this doesn't come off as personal, but I'm kind of sick of this idea that somehow Iraq was a bohemian outpost up until 2003 and then the Americans came along and ruined everything by creating Islamic State.   I've spent the last three years working and studying in Iraq, both in the Kurdish areas, the Yezidi areas and, intermittently, Baghdad.  Don't believe what you read in Zero Hedge, or even the Guardian, necessarily.  It's an essentially masochistic endeavour.

There are, currently, three real centres of conflict in Iraq.  1. Baghdad.  Outside the green zone, it's a bit of a mess, although it has been a couple of months since the last bombing.  You aren't supposed to go out without a detail, if you are a Western worker, but it's possible.  It's not terribly pleasant, though, and I wouldn't recommend it.  If you can go down to the marshes, you really should though.    2. Mosul.  Mosul is home to Arabs, both Christian and Muslim.  That puts it at a bit of odds with its surrounds, which is largely Kurdish and secular.  It is pretty much abandoned, as it was the last retreat of Islamic State (which is not the creation of the CIA, or Mossad but has in fact existed in various guises since the sixties and was a religious reaction, on the part of Western educated Islamic clerics who derided things like the jitterbug as decadent and depraved.)  The third is Kirkuk, which is essentially contested territory and has been for centuries.  There's a whole pile of oil there.

For about 400 years, up until 1916, all of these places were ruled from Turkey, as part of the Ottoman Empire.  After 1916, the infamous Sykes-Picot agreement which followed the collapse of the Empire, these areas were collectively called Iraq, and divided into four distinct governates.  Those governates essentially served as means to provide Britain, Italy and France with oil and dates and olives and suchlike.   International trade was plentiful, and folks got rich, both in the West and in Iraq. A minority, granted, but still.  Money and trade and intellectualism was flowing.   It also provided thousands of jobs and became centres of academic excellence.  But yeah, it's largely fair to say that they were playthings of the west.  It's not a great time in terms of Western foreign policy, I grant you.    During the second half of the 20th century, Western hegemony paled and the UK and France were effectively forced to give over an element of self-governance, in what was and is essentially a federal Iraq.  It was always unstable, and at some point, Saddam Hussein came along and seized power.  In Baghdad, he set about plans to quite literally exterminate any opposition.  He would use torture,  state brutality and cultural oppression.  This ghettoised Iraq.  The Jews and Christians were forced to repatriate or flee to the North.    So for the most part, the Iron Fist of the Ba'athist Party kept an oppressive list on what was a genuinely cosmopolitan part of the world.

Along came Iran, and Kuwait, and this polarised the Persian areas of Mesopotamia with the Arabic areas. This isn't always a good or a bad thing, but Persian cultures and Arabic cultures are quite distinct, and at times polarising.   Well, Saddam didn't like this, and gassed everyone.  If he didn't gas them, he'd torture them.  The 80s were a really, really shite time to be Iraqi.  Not through any foreign intervention (notwithstanding the cultural divide I refer to) but entirely because Baghdad attempted to coerce an Iraqi-Arab nationalism in areas which were neither Iraqi or Arabic.  This came to a head around 1988, in Halabja, when  Hussein embarked on systemic and indiscriminate bombing of his own people, as well as the Kurds, who by now had developed quite the nationalist identity.  Saddam didn't like this, and exacted his revenge.  By 1990, the West couldn't sit back as millions of Kurds and Christians and Muslims were forced to flee over the mountains towards Iran, and, in one of the few genuinely moral pieces of military intervention since WW2, the US and the UK created a Kurdish safe haven.  Since then, the Kurdish diaspora have returned, the Muslims who have fled IS (which was partly a direct response to the toppling of the Saddam and the hopelessly short sighted 'handover' - but, get this, actually used to go around killing people under his leadership as well) have found a home, and the West has been able to effectively destroy IS as a fighting army.    And what do you know, in the areas other than the four hotspots of violence, Iraq is functioning pretty well.  People are free to practice whatever religion they choose, vote for whomever they wish, and do all sorts of things otherwise forbidden in the rest of the Middle East.  You might want to look at the Fulbright Scholarship, Access English, Iraqi Young Leaders Programme, and other academic and humanitarian projects funded by the US Department of State.  You might want to look at the access to uncensored media, movies and music.  You might want to look at the bars, clubs and international tourism in Iraq, too, much of which is supported or funded by the good ol' US of A.  

So, if you want to say that Iraq (a very modern construct) was better off before the Americans became involved, you are basically harking back to a time when a dictator was routinely firing chemical weapons at dissidents, where police actually served as instigators of domestic terror, where Iraqi dissidents were slaughtered, and where religious minorities were forced into learning Arabic, into attending political indoctrination and were effectively banned from receiving international media.   There are Iraqis who would agree with you, but they are the ones who lost power after the handover and who have seen society swing 180 degrees from their previous existence.  

This is not at all to say that Western foreign policy in the ME is benign.  Far from it.  But Iraq, notwithstanding the utter clusterfuck of the handover which has made life almost unconscionably cruel for relatively isolated parts of the country, is a relative success.

 

The 80s were the worst time for iraqis under saddam you say, round about the same time the west supported him. The 2nd gulf war has ruined Iraq and anyone arguing otherwise is in fantasy land.

 

[KarlMarx]

Just now, Savage Henry said:

 

I’ve not said any of that.

You are yet to show me where and when these things are happening.

 

I've seen it documentaries, news programmes, news articles.

Are these lies?