Fallujah Iraq.

I know, but who would make up a story like that? No one would believe it. But this one is documented, because the Marine in question got the Medal of Honor for his heroism.

 

Lucky guy, or perhaps not so lucky.

 

Depends on how you look at it. As far as I know, he had no complaints.

 

Getting back to Events in Iraq, the trial of the Abu Ghraib guards accused of abuse has started.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 155375.stm
Frankly the defence seem to be treating it as a joke, but that might just be how the BBC are reporting it.

 

Well, in Spain it hasn't even reached the papers.
After all the "They are american, they must be guilty" when it was discovered, nobody even remembers now.
Some people won't even remember March11 till it appears again on TV at the aniversary. :-?

Makes me want to emigrate.

 

Shoot those people! :angry:

 

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mi ... 194027.stm

Ah crap - they're trying to stir up Sunni vs Shiite tensions...
Predictable, I suppose, but not a good development)

 

No, it isn't. But such tactics can backfire on them, if they're not careful.

 

Now - here is an interesting theory I read in this month's BBC History Magazine.

Basically, the writer (an Indian lady) drew parallels between the British occupation of India & the way they handled India's independance, and the way America is handling giving Iraqis their independance.

Her basic view was that the British had remained top dog by playing up the differences between the Indian communities (Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian, etc) in a 'divide & rule' method - even to the point where each group voted seperately. It ended up where the minority groups highly resented the majority group. Previous to this - according to her - there had been a much stronger sense of kinship (or at least tolerance) between the different groups. When Independance was granted, things got a bit nasty, resulting in the Partition, and all the highly unpleasant violence and subsequent extremely poor international relations.

Her view on Iraq is that the American attempts to make the Iraqi people see themselves as distinct groups (I am a Sunni, I am a Kurd, etc) will have exactly the same result after the Americans pull out.

What do you reckon?

 

Sounds reasonable, especially since the divisions among the Iraqi people are of similar (religious) nature and equally old and deep. And atrocities have already been committed under Saddam.

 

Ricky wrote:

I reckon she doesn't know what she is talking about.
What American "attempts to make the Iraqi people see themselves as distinct groups" are we talking about?
Read some history of the Kurdish people, they have been oppressed for a long time. The Sunni /Shite rift has also been going on for many centuries.

 

Most religious issues in the area go back to the time of Mohammed and his direct relatives (as does the Sunni/Shiite split). However, the Americans and others currently occupying the country are making a big issue out of it; the case in point is not that the troubles exist but how they are currently being stirred.

After all, religious troubles between Muslims, Christians and Hindi are quite a bit older than the British control over India, too.

 

Roel wrote:

OK you are the second person to claim that. I'm asking for specifics. How is the US "making a big issue out of it"? The US wanted free elections, they wanted all major groups to have a stake in the new government and to be represented, if possible. However they left the specifics up tothe Iraqis as it must be their own government and not be a puppet regime. That doesn't sound like they are stirring up ethnic hatred to me.
Give some examples please.

 

Nobody ever said they were - the article simply put forward the notion that the Americans are making people think more 'I'm a Sunni/Shi'ite/Kurd/whatever' than 'I'm an Iraqi'.
Which, in a country that has a majority of one group, and significant minorities of the others, where a long (and often heavy-handed) regime has kept the divisions in check (although gently highlighting the divisions) can meant a rather vicious backlash. Her example was India 1948.

I'll dig up the article tonight & seek further details, if any.

 

Again, how are "the Americans are making people think more 'I'm a Sunni/Shi'ite/Kurd/whatever' than 'I'm an Iraqi'." ?
What has the US done to make the Iraqi's think along those lines?

 

Don't know. Like I said - I'll go and check the article!

Meanwhile, can you provide evidence that they are promoting the 'I'm an Iraqi 1st, a Sunni 2nd' mentality?

Not a challenge, just curious.

I have not made up my mind on this yet, and am interested.

 

Done some light browsing, found this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 359559.stm

Upshot is (whether you believe the 'neo-colonialism' label or not :roll: ) that America appears to have installed a government where there must be high-level representatives from each main group.
Which is pointing out differences.

One report ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 388919.stm ) shows how different government posts were allocated to members of the different factions. Not political factions, either.

Yes, it is done to stop any one group dominating the political scene (undemocratic, but very sensible in this case) - which is what us Brits tried to do in India...

 

Ricky wrote:

Read the whole article and you will see both sides of the debate represented. It just plain makes sense to me. In order to establish a viable government that at least has a chance of sucess there is no doubt that the minorities (some of which where the former rulers) most have a stake in the government. If they don't and their only agenda is to bring the government down then one is just setting the system up for failure.
Who says that because a democratic form is government is desirable that it must be a strict "majority rules" democracy? In point of fact it is undesirable and can result in a type of mob rule where minorities are oppressed by the majority. Just having the opportunity to elect representatives and for the people to have a voice in a country like Iraq is a huge leap forward yet now the critics, many of whom were content to leave Iraq as a brutal , oppressive dictatorship come forward to nit pick.

 

I did read the whole article - note:
"Yes, it is done to stop any one group dominating the political scene (undemocratic, but very sensible in this case)"
It is quite a good article, with views from both sides - classic BBC stuff.

However, it is an example of laying down obvious 'right, you're a Sunni, you're a Kurd' distinctions, which is what you were asking for...

I don't know the politics of the writer of the article - I do know her reason for writing the article (at least, the reason she wrote!). Basically, it is a chance to learn from History.
Britain faced a roughly similar situation and stuffed it up.
America needs to be careful not to do the same, and can learn from our mistake.
If you start ensuring that no one group can dominate, it is too easy for minority goups to start believing that one group is trying to dominate.
Paradoxical, or human nature?

 

Human nature, IMHO, tends to be paradoxical.

However, it does make sense to try and ensure that everyone in Iraq, regardless of ethnicity or religious beliefs, gets some representation in their government.