Boys! Boys! Boys!
Chill, will ya?!
Put me down for a couple of tickets to the JWD smack down in Seattle.
Oh, the irony of THAT!
So..I'm reading and reading this thread, and the following stops me dead.
Actually Trauma Hound, What we would do and what we did do 200 years ago was get rid of the oppressor ourselves. We didn't need anyone else to come liberate us like the Iraqis do. We do not tolerate dictators in our country. We fight people who try to kill our families. The worse it gets the more we fight. These people have already shown that they don't have what it takes to get rid of a man they don't want. They are too afraid to make the sacrifices. Oh yeah, they're ready to run a suicide mission but they aren't willing to risk the death of their loved ones for the freedom of their countrymen. Some Iraqis do see the Coalition as an invading enemy. Yeah......And..... Some here in the US beleive there was no holocaust.
What you will find, when the dust clears, is a secretly grateful yet spineless population. TimB
Tim, Do you actually believe this? You believe that there is a reasonable comparison to the American Revolution, and the situation that was/is in Iraq?
Please, say it ain't so!
First off, King George the III was certainly no oppressor ALA Saddam Hussein. He was absolutely an odd man and was known for exhibiting some rather strange habits. He was also a lover of literature and art. He wasn't, however, a man so thirsty for power that he was willing to kill and torture members of his own family, or brutalize anyone that questioned his judgment.
We didn't need anyone to come and liberate us like the Iraqis? Again, hard to compare. King George didn't LIVE in the United States. He lived thousands of miles away in England. Granted, he had his ministers and loyal subjects running things, but it's kinda hard to dictate when you ain't even near the place. And in those days, any kind of communication, the transport of arms, and troops literally took several months because everything had to be transported by ship across the Atlantic.
And remember, what got the colonists all riled up was TAXES (Some things never change *Sigh*). Not freedom, or liberty. That didn't come until later.
And nearly all historians agree that the US would have remained under British rule if it had not been for France (Oh Gawd! I said France!) entering into the war. Though the Rebels had won a few important battles, for the most part, they were getting their butts kicked, ROYALLY (pun intended). Because of horrible conditions in which the Continental Army had to fight (and we have all read the stories about them marching in the snow with no shoes, let alone no food, and Congress not having any money to pay them) desertion was a never ending problem with which Washington had to cope. There were plenty of spineless ones amongst the rank and file.
Tolerate dictators? Well, since we have never had one here, I don't think we have been tested on that one yet. But, we do tolerate a number of them around the world.
The Iraqis don't have what it take? You just might have a point on that one. Considering they have been living with economic sanctions for over a decade, you are right. They don't. They are a beaten down, starved, frightened people. And to overthrow a government, one needs MONEY. Guns and ammo ain't free.
And to be honest, Iraqis are really a FALSE people. Kinda like when we used to call people under the thumb of Moscow, "Soviets". And when the Soviet house of cards came tumbling down, all the various ethnic groups, having had their common enemy destroyed, began to fight amongst themselves and eventually established their own independent countries.
You, we, must not forget that Islam, and what sect a person belongs to, is going to be of great importance of where loyalies are going to lie. Iraq is 60 percent Shiite Muslim. The Shiite have been brutally oppressed during Saddam's regime. And they are desperately thirsty for revenge on the Sunni majority. It is mostly the Shiia that want Saddams ouster. Of course, there's the Kurds that have already been mentioned in this thread.
Back to not having what it takes and not willing to make sacrifices. These are NOT a well fed, well off, American colonists. FYI: The colonists, as a whole, enjoyed a better standard of living than that of their Mother country. Well kept, and fed, they were. Again, the issue was taxes. Plus, there were PLENTY of people that remained loyal to the crown gambling that the Continental Army would never win the war. For many Iraqis, their loved ones ARE JUST about all they have. Would you risk your daughter under those conditions? Think about it.
And when the dust clears........
Oh yeah, when the dust clears. Interesting those days will be. Most people don't realize how much this is going to affect the entire region. Again, these people are religious Muslims with many ancient and tribal ways. With Islam there is not separation of church and state. Sharia is the law. It's going to be very delicate indeed to establish any form of democratic government that can co-exist peacefully with Islam. Especially with the Shiite majority being next door, and possibly feel a strong bond with, to another Shiite majority country: Iran.
Then, there's Saudi Arabia with it's oppressive monarchy and strict adherence to the Sharia. They certainly are NOT going to support any successful democracy in the region. Hence, their own population catches the even the faintest scent of personal freedoms (especially the women) and their control is challenged.
Secretly grateful, yet, spineless? Ouch! Considering the conditions of which these people have lived, "spineless" is hardly the word I would use to describe them.