So.., who are US fighting in Iraq against?

easy , don't take it so personally
I just wanted to point out that for at least partial comprehension what is going on out there in the world, one has to have quite broad degree of knowledge about particular country, society, culture and historical background of evolution of these. To say, media are not providing us with such a complex set of info. So.. if one doesn't have such insight of particular problem, any his judgement can't be any accurate.

nah, you misunderstood me
Tell me... what is my vision? What is yours? I don't know..
I was not talking about visions and how it is etc.. I was talking about relativism. How can one be blind when trying to promote relativism?

 

And then there is reality

I would rather people spoke their true feelings about current situations than speaking in riddles (no offence). Making comparisons is okay, but for it to be a fruitful discussion we all need to make sure we are understood properly.

Many a misunderstanding has ended in an all out flamewar

-glas-

 

anyone know where i can D/L a good flamewar sim?

 

hi roland,

try
www.politicians.talk

 

Didnt albanians target civillians as well? (you may check this thread for a very recent example)
Dont the islamists defend their rights to live in their country the way they want to?

 

offtopic: large picture
http://photomatt.net/dropbox/2004/04/bush-large.jpg

 

About Al-Queada (named AQ later, to be short) and US:

Aims:
AQ: kill westerners, no matter what they are, what they think ans so on.
US: kill AQ members, as long as they are planning to kill westerners.

Aims in Iraq:
AQ: Shariat law being the only one, disregarding the countries long tradition of social (but not political) freedom.
US: Democratic order, disregarding the fact that there's no democratic tradition in the country. Gaining OPEC-independent source of oil.

Problems in future:
AQ: there will be growing opposition against Islamic law, when the conflict is won.
US: there will be growing opposition (both in Iraq and in US), no matter what US does.

Conclusion (my own):
Starting war with Saddam was pure idiotism, withdrawing troops now would be even a greater one. Both sides are unable to win, both are determined not to cooperate. Iraq won't be stable in one year... we'll be lucky to see it stabilized in five. US and coalition forces will only loose reputation. Atrocities will continue. Noone won, all (except for Bush's friends from oil industry) will loose. War is stupidity...

 

Islamism is muslemfundamentalism aimed at the creation of a muslem state. (with the Sharia etc)

No they certainly do not have the right to choose how they wish to enforce this... like FDRoosevelt said: "Your freedom stopt where my nose begins"... there's no way they can decide for someone else as well (i.e. by enforcing the creation of a muslem state by the use of violence)

<Z>

sry for OT

 

"I went to the place where every white face is an invitation to robbery
and sitting here in my safe european home, i don't wanna go back there again"

 

Here is a new reason for iraquis to fight against the puppet regime:
The new flag of Iraq - as suggested by the iraqui puppet regime :





PS: No joke - thats really the official suggestion for the new flag of Iraq...

 

@ babek: Sorry for being thick, can you explain the problem they would have with that flag?

Thanks

-glas-

 

my guess is probably that it looks fucking dumb

 

Apparently the shade of blue is too close to that of the Israeli flag

Apparently also the newspaper who originally printed the pic of the flag had lightened it, possibly in an effort to stir up trouble. The 'real' flag is supposed to have a darker shade of blue.

To be honest, I think the idea behind the flag (blue lines represent the tigres and euphrates, which signifies the Sunni/Shia sects, the yellow for the Kurds, with the crescent being an Islamic symbol) is actually quite good.

Besides, it's only temporary.

-glas-

 

1st: These flags already exist - yesterday there were reports in german TV how iraqis burned the new flag on the street.

2nd : This flag is maybe nice for a Alladdin-Hollywood-Film but it has no meaning for the iraquis or Arabs.

Arabs used the following colors in their flags:
RED:
The Khawarij were the first Islamic group to emerge after the assassination of Caliph Uthman III, forming the first republican party in the early days of Islam. Their symbol was the red flag. Arab tribes who participated in the conquest of North Africa and Andalusia carried the red flag, which became the symbol of the Islamic rulers of Andalusia (756-1355).
In modern times, red symbolizes the Ashrafs [ie. Sharifians] of the Hijaz and the Hashemites, descendants of the Prophet.

GREEN:
The Fatimid Dynasty (909-1171), North Africa
The Fatimid Dynasty was founded in Morocco by Abdullah Al-Mahdi, and went on rule all of North Africa. They took green as their color, to symbolize their allegiance to Ali, the Prophet's cousin, who was once wrapped in a green coverlet in place of the Prophet in order to thwart an assassination attempt.

WHITE:
The Umayyad Dynasty (661-750), Damascus
The Umayyads ruled for ninety years, taking white as their symbolic color as a reminder of the Prophet's first battle at Badr, and to distinguish themselves from the Abbasids, by using white, rather than black, as their color of mourning. Mu'awia Ibn Abi Sufian (661-750), founder of the Umayyad state, proclaimed himself Caliph of Jerusalem.

BLACK
BlThe Prophet Mohammad (570-632)
In the seventh century, with the rise of Islam and subsequent liberation of Mecca, two flags - one white, one black - were carried. On the white flag was written, "There is no god but God (Allah) and Mohammad is the Prophet of God."
In pre-Islamic times, the black flag was a sign of revenge. It was the color of the headdress worn when leading troops into battle. Both black and white flags were placed in the mosque during Friday prayers.
The Abbasid Dynasty (750-1258), ruling from Baghdad, took black as a symbol of mourning for the assassination of relatives of the Prophet and in remembrance of the Battle of Karbala.


Look at the the old iraqi flags:

The Kingdom of Iraq had the colours green, black, red and white



Then 1953 Egypt gave birth to the "Arab Liberation Flag" - 3-stripes-horizontally: Red - White - Black with green 5-pointed stars or a golden hawk in the center.
The following countries changed to this flag design to symbolize their union:
Syri , Iraq , Yemen, Libya (later changed flag to green to symbolize Ghaddafis so called "green revolution") and Egypt.

So Iraq had this flag until the end of Saddam:


Thats NOT Saddams flag - it was the iraqi flag before Saddam who only added the words "God is great" in the center of the flag

So - Iraq - with its relativly short history always had the described colours and design.

And now they get this dumb flag design which look more like the israeli design with 2 blue stripes and a blue religious symbol (islamic-half-moon / 6-pointed-jew-star) in the center.

Yes - officially the 2 blue stripes should symbolize the 2 rivers (thank god Iraq has only 2 big rivers - otherwise the design would be worser than it is) and teh yellow or brown stripe at the bottom should symbolize the kurd minority.

But whats with the turkish minority ? Or the sunnite minority ? Why not putting some other funny stripes in the designs ?

And I can understand that the iraqis are angry about this flag design and are burning this "symbol of the puppet regime" (how they said yesterday in te TV report).

The Iraqi flag should be a red - white - black design with a new symbol in the center - but not this baby-blue ridiculous Disneyland-version.

I would feel the same anger if the iranian flag would loose the traditional green - white - red design it had during all its history.

 

I thought the 2 rivers design was a reference to the Shia majority and Sunni minority, in that their roots were within the river basins of the tigres and euphrates?

Afaik these are the three main groups within the region and this flag was a (possibly lame) attempt to show that all people are now represented, not just the Sunni minority (as was the case with Saddam).

I do still believe that the decision to remove the flag of Saddam (which it effectively was, since it differs from the Iraqi flag pre-Saddam) was correct. If it was an attempt by the Coalition to make Israel somehow more 'acceptable' to the Arab world by giving them similiar coloured flags, then it was a stupid and disgusting thing to do. As I said tho, I believe the principle behind it was right....I wonder who they consulted before going ahead with it tho.

-glas-

 

1st:The red-white-black Flag with 3 green stars was used BEFORE Saddam since the 50ties.
It is no Saddam flag.

2nd: Euphrat and Tigris are not good to represent the 2 groups of Shiites and Sunnites.
Then you should better use the colours green and black.

3rd: Why putting in the kurdish minority with a stripe ? And why not putting in other minorities like the turkmens ?

All arab nations use the colours white, red, green and black.
But not this ridiculous baby blue.

What is now the effect of this flag ?

Angry people are burning it on the streets.

It would have been far better if a democratic elected iraqui parliament and not this puppet regime of criminals has introduced a new flag.

And it would have been so easy: Let the classic red-white-black stripes and put in a central symbol. Maybe a crest with symbols of shiites, sunnites, kurds and turkmens - like the golden sun of the kurds instead of this stripe at the bottom.

And surely it was not wise to choose the baby blue of the israeli flag - a flag which many arabs hate very much.

 

Even more stupid, not long ago and man in England was asked not to hang the Union Jack from his house as it might be offensive.

How F**king stupid is that?


Mal

 

@ babek: It's temporary, I imagine only until the democratic government is in place. The colours are a problem obviously. Perhaps an attempt to 'de-Arabize' them (for want of a better expression)?

I suppose if someone came and tried to take away our Saltire and make it like the flag of St George I'd be fairly pissed off myself...



-glas-

 

OK - then aloow me the following questions:

Why - in gods name - they are provocating the few pro-US-iraqis with an israeli-like flag and withoud respecting the traditional colors ?

Why - if this flag is temporally - there are so many flags produced? The people who were burning the new flags didnt burned improvised flags made of paper or so. They burned real flags with the new symbols. So someone has made them in an efficient number. Maybe someone from the corrupt puppet regime just want to sell this ridiculous design and make some money

And why are they implementing a discussion of a new flag now before an election in Iraq. There are really other problems in this land which is going in total chaos.

 

@afi veni a estudiar a Argentina! las chicas son mas lindas

As regards this topic I suggest that you guys should read Michael Moore's new book: "Dude, Where's My Country?"
It's a very nice reading and you'll realize many things that you didn't even know about Bush and his relation with Oil companies and the reconstruction of Iraq, and many things more.

I don't feel up to write a whole speech about political, sociological or religious implications in this war because I'm writing from a ciber cafe and I really don't have time.
I think most of you know my position as regards this subject, Bush is a dumbass and unlike what glas said, I don't think (and I'm sure of it) USA (by this I mean the government) didn't invade Iraq for a noble reason, on the contrary... they care nothing about building a democratic country, and civilians are just insects that they can easily crush on their way to achieve their main goal: steal their precious oil.

Sorry glas but I don't share that point with you, anyway... I hope you and your lil Paul are doing fine. Cheers mate!