Bitter Ashes
18th May 2009, 15:29
I'm still trying to wrap my head around all this so I'm going to be making a few threads in the learning forum to see if there's something that might come out of this that may convince me that I've been in the wrong all this while that's not been mentioned yet.
Well, here's what I've been thinking. There is no doubt that Sadam Hussein was scum I'm hoping. A rogue puppet governer for Iraq who has without question massacred his way through the people he was supposed to represent. Before anyone says, "The Brits have done that too!" be advised that I'm aware of that already and I'll be getting to that later. In the mean time I need to know whether you all agree that Sadam was a bad guy, or not. Maybe you think he was justified and if so please elaborate why you think that.
The main question I'm asking though is why there's an insurgency in Iraq now when there wasnt one while Sadam was in power. Both are viewed as oppressive and have several black marks on thier human rights record, but why is it that there's a fight going on against the coallition troops while there wasnt one against the Republican Guard? In fact, early in the insurgency, most of the rebel groups were in fact led by Republican Guardsmen. So why did people join these groups? Was it a case of the enemy of thier enemy is my friend?
Later on in the war the clerics started to show up and began reffering to us as "kaffir" and that part at least I could understand as we clearly were not practicing Muslims and clearly were not Dhimmi either. So again, I'm sure that Sadam would have filled the boots to be targetted the same way, but he wasnt. How come?
Try to keep it civil please.
Well, here's what I've been thinking. There is no doubt that Sadam Hussein was scum I'm hoping. A rogue puppet governer for Iraq who has without question massacred his way through the people he was supposed to represent. Before anyone says, "The Brits have done that too!" be advised that I'm aware of that already and I'll be getting to that later. In the mean time I need to know whether you all agree that Sadam was a bad guy, or not. Maybe you think he was justified and if so please elaborate why you think that.
The main question I'm asking though is why there's an insurgency in Iraq now when there wasnt one while Sadam was in power. Both are viewed as oppressive and have several black marks on thier human rights record, but why is it that there's a fight going on against the coallition troops while there wasnt one against the Republican Guard? In fact, early in the insurgency, most of the rebel groups were in fact led by Republican Guardsmen. So why did people join these groups? Was it a case of the enemy of thier enemy is my friend?
Later on in the war the clerics started to show up and began reffering to us as "kaffir" and that part at least I could understand as we clearly were not practicing Muslims and clearly were not Dhimmi either. So again, I'm sure that Sadam would have filled the boots to be targetted the same way, but he wasnt. How come?
Try to keep it civil please.