N.Y. Times: Free to protest, Iraqis complain about the U.S.

Sorry, Rummy... they've run out of flowers in Baghdad.

Considering all the ruckus kicked up with the protests here, I'm curious to see what opinions are regarding Iraqi protests now that the war is over. While some applauded the right to protest here in America, many thought it shouldn't be done. Some said there shouldn't be protests because they weren't thinking of the Iraqi people. But now we have the Iraqi people themselves protesting the American presence in Iraq.

The question posed in the poll is essentially the question up for debate here.

And, since I'm sure it will come up anyway, how long do you think American forces should be present in the country? What limits should they set for intervention into the affairs of civilians once order is restored?

Expanding a bit on the American presence in Iraq, and perhaps as fuel for Iraqi protests, this bit is interesting:
DynCorp Rent-a-Cops may head to Iraq

Okay... while I'm sure I'll have more to contribute to this, I turn it over now to you.

I think they are ungrateful but i think it is mostly because the basic services like Power & Water have yet to be restored fully

Once they get fully operational, they will chill out.

I posted this on another board on the Internet, but it is an appropriate response here in this thread I think......

Saw some footage today from Ur and from Baghdad of Iraqi protesters. 'Give us the Freedom you promised' was what one sign said. In Ur, they were protesting the make-up of the meeting yesterday of Iraqis trying to form a new government, and apparently in Baghdad, they weren't happy about the police force.....

Isn't it wonderful? Think about it folks! Stop and think about it. Iraqis, many for the first time in their entire lives are taking to the street to voice their opinions, their OWN opinions. They do this without fear of being jailed, tortured, maimed, raped and killed. They do it in front of television cameras and even mug in front of the camera. They aren't afraid of being identified. More than the flowers, the celebrations, the thumbs up, these protests are the signs of true liberation. These people feel free to object to things, to voice their opinions, to make themselves heard. This my friends is liberation, it is freedom and liberty in it's infancy and in it's own way, it is a celebration of a victory for the people of Iraq. I am happy and proud for them.

I harken back to our own nation's early days. If you read the history from those times, our forefathers celebrated in much the same way when the United States of America became a true reality. They fought, they argued, they raised their voices in strident debate for what they believed was right. In one case at least, two of our forefathers, Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton even dueled with Hamilton ending up fatally wounded. Kind of makes our political debates today look a little on the tame side.....

But, this is the stuff of freedom. This is the heart and soul that makes it thrive. It is the engine that drives liberty. Pulling down Saddam's statues was symbolic, but the protests we are seeing in the streets of Iraq are real. They mean Iraq is becoming free. What a wonderful sight!

There is much strife ahead, much that must be done, but it has started, and a nation has been freed. The heartland of human civilization has been unleashed after decades of oppression and they are pushing forward, ready to re-enter the world from the darkness. They do this with the help of the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Poland, Denmark, Spain, and a host of other freedom-loving nations around the world. The citizens of these nations rightly share in the glory and bask in the sun of a free Iraq. We will help them overcome the initial difficulties, then soon we will stand aside and watch a free Iraq shine!

It has been a good day today in Iraq.

Well that's wonderful. In that case, am I to assume that Bush has already paid heed to the protests and is withdrawing his forces even as I write?

The troops are being withdrawn. 2 carrier groups are scheduled to leave the Gulf area soon. Another infantry division that was forming up in the states has gotten orders to stand down.

I agree with most of what Aquilla said : summarized in my words by

"We got rid of your dictator. Now its YOUR turn to make a better future for yourselves (with our help, if you want it)."

I was referring to the troops that will enforce a US military government.

I don't suppose that you think there would be a public outcry if we left completely and immediately?

"HEY, you made this mess, come clean it up"...or something to that effect?

Do you advocate immediate and complete withdrawal?

Iraqi's may not have liked hussein, but they don't like us that much either. at least hussein was Iraqi. they veiw us as an occupier. though I agree a little with Aquilla, they are much more free then they have been.

they see us trying to install another puppet, and don't like it. one of the guys we support(ed) was the general in command of the Iraqi forces that gassed the area of halabja, indiscriminitly killing thousands of kurds. he was in denmark awaiting a war crimes trial. I think he was one of those hacked to peices by shi'ites recently.

we should rebuild Iraq, since we broke it. but we should let the Iraqi's choose their own new leaders. no interim government, as we put into afghanistan, which we still need to gaurd. an interim gov. would require us to keep soldiers there to gaurd it.

amlord, care to provide sources?

No, and I never intimated that i did.

I was responding to Aquilla's comments about how marvelous it is that the Iraqis are now able to protest by pointing out that they are protesting against a foriegn invader who will pay them no heed.

I'm glad to see pessimism has reached new levels. Not only are people sure that the US will fail to help Iraq create a new representative government, they already know the US will fail. Of course, if everyone expects complete and utter failure, then even a mild success will look spectacular.

The people of Iraq are going to quickly tire of an American presence if no moves are being made to restore their sovereignity. However, some moves are being made, including the restoration of much of the police force. In the next few weeks, the speed at which the US restores public services and puts together a provisional government will be telling.

The fact that Iraqis feel free to protest our selection of potential people to represent them is a good sign, to a point. Once a stable government is up and running, the ability of the Iraqi people to protest, yet still be able to function with one another, will be a true test of how successful things are going.

I get the general feeling the anti-war group want to see the US fail to democratize Iraq. Who cares about the Iraqi people?

Care to elaborate? Why have you come to that conclusion?

I would say that that statement is an extension of the anti-war = anti-Bush theory (which I subscribe to).

Any failure for Bush is seen as a victory for the Dems. The more spectacular the failure, the better. Failure in Iraq would be a god-send to people like Tom Daschle.

Amlord- your answer to my question to hugo confuses me even more. I thought we were discussing Iraqi protesters. I doubt any of them give a hoot about Tom Daschle.

I think he was talking about domestic anti-war types.

In Iraq, there will be a certain portion that benefitted under the Saddam regime. They may be a portion of protestors and would be most interested in the "go home Yankee" mentality.

Other groups may see this as an opportunity for a power grab, with the presence of American troops hindering their prospects.

BTW, my answer to the poll was undecided, since without knowing the motivations, its hard to cast judgements.

Yes, it is good that the Iraqi people are now free to protest. It may not, however, be a good thing that we have given them such justification for protesting. Wouldn't you be upset if a foreign country was about to pick people to represent you? And wouldn't you be upset if those people up for selection are people you don't know anything about? Looking at it from an Iraqi perspective, it seems they have ample reason to fear a potential puppet government in which they have little to no voice. Afterall, they're already missing their voice in the current selections being made by our government.


Unlike the previous post from amlord I fail to see how this has any application to groups potentially making a grab for power in Iraq. The comment seems restricted to those protesters here in America rather than those in Iraq, which is who the thread is addressing. Beyond finding the assumption of "anti-war groups" not caring about the Iraqi people an extremist position, the idea belongs on a thread addressing American protests, not one dealing with Iraqi protests. I think it goes without saying that Iraqi protesters care about Iraqi people, since they are the Iraqi people.

Define irony. heh. Bush HAS given you at least something. Your able to hold up that sign and protest are you not?



Gargage like that ticks me off. If Bush were the same, you would be dead by now, and your family tortured for having shown signs of dissent.

I sympothize with the Iraqi people right now. I can understand their apprehension about a large American presence in Iraq (they have been conquered many times before)

Hopefully, American will help restore order, assist with the installation of a new gov't, then get the heck out. I have no desire to be there longer than we have to.

--cheers

I really don't see this as a protest out of fear of the US really. I see this as a method Iraqis are using to ensure that the US is aware of all the potential voices in the country. They just want to make sure they are heard and that the US doesn't rest on its military victory, that it moves forward with reconstruction. This could change quickly to animosity though, if the US is seen to be dragging its feet.

Having US officials choose people for an interim government isn't an ideal way of handling things. But given the circumstances, I haven't seen a good alternative to it. Something needs to be in place until a permanent government can be set up. The US isn't going to want to try and operate a government for a year or however long it takes to get things going. There is not going to be any support for that, in Iraq or in the US.

Another major problem is figuring out who represents the Iraqi people. The Iraqi exiles claim to represent the people and want to be in control. Various groups representing the Sunnis and Shia are going to want representation also. The guy in charge of putting together the interim government has an unenviable job of trying to figure out who represents the people. He is also not going to be able to pull a MacArthur and write a constitution for Iraq. This interim government will have to do this, or at least put together a vague outline of a system of government for the elected representatives of a permanent government to define. We have done this in Afghanistan, and it has worked tolerably well so far.

So while the Iraqi people's voices aren't being heard to the extent that we all hope they will eventually be, they also are not being ignored.

Iraq does have a reason to fear a puppet government being put into place. The only way to alleviate that fear is for the US to get a permanent, legitimate government underway as soon as possible, and then getting the heck out. Until this is finished, its all just words.

See. They act just like the people who say Bush is like Hitler.

That is crap because Bush is GIVING them their freedoms, freedoms which Saddam never gave them in his years of iron rule

Some of this is true. What I find funny is that US media was asked and actually forced by Marines away from protesters, NOT to report on Iraqi protests, and that is not the stuff of freedom.

In all of this I wonder, with our hasty pats on the back of a job well done, how you bring freedom and democracy to a land, an entire region that knows nothing of it. They have only been colonized or dictated to. We shall be seen as colonizers, until we leave. Now, how many factions in the rest of the Mid-East will be funding tribes and groups in an ultimate power struggle? the same politics for which the Mid-east is known.

The US has a great degree of naivete about the Arab world. We are basically Christian/Judaiic invaders. We shall never be seen as other despite the initial thrill at the fall of Saddam.
How long will we have to step in to stop tribal power factions, clans, and other mid-east powers from taking over Iraq and possibly reinstating a fundamentalist Islamic regime? Worse than the first? At least where freedom is concerned.
I dont think we can claim victory and glory just yet.

I'm pretty sure that the Iraqi people would be allowed to protest america under saddam. hell, I bet saddam would arrange it. they aren't protesting saddam's regime really, and THAT would get you killed. do you not remember prior to this war videos of thousands of Iraqis marching in protest of a war? if saddam aprooved them, protests could happen.

the Iraqi people are afraid of who we will put in. we just recently put the old police force back in power. these are the same police forces from saddams regime. these are the people that dissappeared thousands of Iraqi dissidents. Baghdad protests reinstatement of saddams police.

and since when does freedom mean getting shot at while protesting? (US admits mosul killings

[Quote edited for posting]

If you could, a link would be helpful regarding the claims of the U.S. military forcing members of the media away from protesters in Iraq. This is the first place I've heard this claim, so sources would be nice...

And in response to the post and links provided by unabomber, I find the conflicting stories regarding the protest shootings interesting. While the official claim now seems to be that forces were returning fire, they originally denied ever shooting in the first place. After that initial claim they then claimed to be returning fire, but that they hadn't shot into the crowd. Now, of course, they not only allege returning some other fire, but also having shot into the crowd in the process.

While there's certainly something shady going on at least in regards to the press releases, I'd still like to think the soldiers didn't intend on killing any protesting civilians. Whatever feelings I hold for the administration if office, I still recognize the individuality of our soldiers and continue to hope they would neither obey orders or take it upon themselves to fire on unarmed civilians.

Should a link surface, however, revealing U.S. military forces keeping the media away from protest coverage, I may begin to question the situation and any others that follow.

Abs,
This is what I have now, my news sources move very fast and some archives get off page quik: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/mid...w/37536/1/.html
Takes awhile but will come up. Heres the quote:
For the first time, visibly angered US military officials sought to distance the media from the protest, moving reporters and cameras about 30 metres (yards) from the barbed-wired entrance to the hotel.

"We want you to pull back to the back of the hotel because they (the Iraqis) are only performing because the media are here," said a marine colonel who wore the name Zarcone but would not give his first name or title.

The crowd later moved to the nearby square where the statue of Saddam was toppled Wednesday to signal the end of the regime.

As three of the marines' armored amphibious vehicles passed by, they chanted: "No, no, USA."

On some other notes going on here, protesters being fired upon: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2951789.stm

The best democrats can hope for is a terrorist attack herei n the states to point a finger at bush sayin 'you've failed, and all reasons for war are false' or some line like that, these people were not anti-war they were anti-Bush, and all they were hoping to do war stop the war, right ?
It is the same war on terrorism, we went to iraq, for a number of reasons, people just got to distracted by the WMD's issue, and forgot or just plain ignored the fact it supports terrorism.

It was mainly the left that was anti-war, and Clinton saying we shouldn't get distracted by the WMD's and create a seperate war, and all the liberal Democrats followed him and still do, 100%... And I found online, the people (including Joe Lieberman, John French kerry, and Thomas Daschle) urging president clintont to attack iraq because of the WMD's threats, The bush administration has same intellegence as the Clinton administration had, knowing it was same thing, and yet the left is attacking this, saying it's political *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** materialized by the white house.

While this is the old news section, it's helpful if you can stay on topic throughout the boards, bd123. Your post doesn't appear to have anything to do with protests in Iraq.

Should you take it to the appropriate thread, you might offer something to substantiate your claims about people being anti-Bush rather than anti-war, and certainly something more to explain your unfounded claim that...
Stating facts and dealing with issues will earn you far more credibility here than making unsupported claims and engaging in blind partisan politics.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L02454009.htm



There are a lot of unemployed soldiers in Iraq. They have no means of feeding their families. These Iraqis cannot appreciate being "liberated" when they are going without the basics to sustain life.

Yes, I sympathize with the Iraqi protesters. And I don't want to see more American deaths, either.

We need to get the US troops out of there ASAP and let the UN take over the rebuilding of Iraq. Tensions are extremely high. More US troops will end up dying during the occupation than during the war.

I sympathize with the soldiers too.

I really don' t see the point in purging the Iraqi army. That just doesn't make sense to sack the whole army. They didn't do it in Afghanistan (of course, in afghanistan, there were already 2 different armies, one made up of Taliban members & one made up of their opposition)