What is the world opinion about today's events? - Page 2

Urban Ranger · April 9, 2003, 23:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Evil_Eric_4
But they may no longer believe that America's only purpose for invading was to conquer, colonize and steal.

Of course not. The US also invades to control and prop up friendly regimes.

Evil_Eric_4 · April 9, 2003, 23:59

UR
In the name of national security***gasp***
Imagine that--we are so self-centered

and that quote is from Ned-not me--I dont think anything will ever change the minds of the arabs--its been hard-coded into their brains by their media ,Mullahs and their own governments for too long.

MattyBoy · April 10, 2003, 00:07

If we take it as a given that US/Britain/Aus were going to fight until they won...

...I would think that both hawks and doves are rejoicing to see such a breakthrough. Hawks would be feeling triumphant and doves would be glad to see the fighting will probably be over much sooner. The only disappointment in seeing the war end sooner could have been from those who supported the Iraqi side and still held out hope for an Iraqi victory.

Why would people want to see more killing for almost certainly the same result?

For me it has been wierd to want to celebrate this victory, while I still feel we* should never have instigated this war.

* I would prefer to have used the word they here, but that would be inaccurate because I'm an Australian citizen.

Ned · April 10, 2003, 00:51

There is a survey of world opinion posted on the CNN site. They all seem to want the UN to take charge in Iraq to curb American power and influence.

Well, I say to that - let's ask the people of Iraq who they trust more. The USA or the UN.

I think I know the answer to that question. The move to push the UN into a lead role in Iraq is a power grab by the Arab ruling class to "win the peace" and impose a regime in Iraq like their own: oppressive and undemocratic.

Americans to Bush: stand up to the UN one more time.

nationalist · April 10, 2003, 01:15

Well, I hope that we start devoting our time to rebuilding and democratizing these two conquered countries (Iraq, Afghanistan). If 20 years from now these countries are working democracies with rising standards of living and good levels of human rights, then I think that we have done some good. If we screw things up, things in the ME will get even worse, and we will have just wasted 78 billion dollars. We're coming up to a crossroads. Maybe we can use this to create a Palestinian state and patch up our relationship with the UN and EU, or maybe we'll **** things up royally and create a world even more dangerous and menacing than ever before. We'll just have to wait and see.

gsmoove23 · April 10, 2003, 02:01

The Arab nations don't have any veto rights in the UN and I would be certain the Iraqis would trust the UN more then the US. Right now the only benefit of having the US control the reconstruction is the massive amounts of money that will pour into American comanies through contracts. This may be counterproductive since world opinion is already against us and it will simply feed into the arguement that the war was started out of self-interest.

Ming · April 10, 2003, 02:03

It should get interesting... I'm sure all of the arab neighbors are praying to their gods that a strong, democratic country doesn't rise from the ashes... It will put a lot of preasure on their own rule if it does

Ned · April 10, 2003, 02:36

gsmove32, the Iraqi opposition has stated many times that the new regime will remember those who helped it and those who did not.

If the Iraqi people have any say in this, they will avoid UN control as they will no longer be able to discriminate against collaborators and supporter their former oppressors. In fact, the new government probably will have very cool relations with a number of pro-Saddam Arab regimes.

Ned · April 10, 2003, 02:38

News from CNN, Saddam paid al Jazeera.

This may be why al Jazeera suddenly began broadcasting the truth once Saddam and Baghdad Bob were no longer in charge.

gsmoove23 · April 10, 2003, 02:52

Ned, the Iraqi opposition is on the payroll of the US government. I thought by Iraqi people you meant the people that have actually lived there. They have no reason to trust American intentions. Great you "liberated" us, can you go now?

CNN story link?

TheStinger · April 10, 2003, 03:33

The BBC reported from Jordan last night and boy were those arabs gutted. They couldn't believe that people were trashing poor little Saddams statues. They really did believe he was some sort of Arab saviour. They must be wondering what happened to the info minister

Tattila the Hun · April 10, 2003, 03:41

Isn't it nice how Rumsfeld catecorizes Saddam with the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Lenin , Ceaucescu... Brutal dictator have-beens...

Learn history, dammit!

Lenin was a philosopher, and the bugger died in 19..23, I think, before **** hit the fan...

DinoDoc · April 10, 2003, 03:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
Learn history, dammit!

Lenin was a philosopher, and the bugger died in 19..23, I think, before **** hit the fan...

You're telling other people to learn history with this rose colored view of Lenin!

TheStinger · April 10, 2003, 03:47

Lenin wasn't in the same league as Stalin or Hitler. To Rummsie though all commies are are the same I suppose

tandeetaylor · April 10, 2003, 03:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
al jazeera is broadcasting the events without too much bias. This in itself is a major event.

As a speaker of Arabic, I'm sure you are a regular viewer of Al-Jazeera.

I haven't watched Al-Jazeera much during the war, but I have to say, when I did watch it a lot a couple years ago, I saw more interviews with Israelies than I do on American news.

Tattila the Hun · April 10, 2003, 04:17

Rose colored?

Lenin might have been the creator of Soviet Union, source of many evils, but his goals were good, and it's just plain wrong to bunch him with brutal murderers. Why not Marx, then?

Ned · April 10, 2003, 06:16

Gsmoove, I saw it on the banner while watching CNN. I have not seen it on their site.

Jack the Bodiless · April 10, 2003, 06:26

Lenin was directly responsible for quite a lot of post-revolution terror. Robespierre is perhaps the closest comparison.

Ned · April 10, 2003, 06:27

FOX correspondent in Amman said the majority were shocked. A minority were in disbelief - thinking that the events were filmed in Hollywood. Another minority were hopeful that the people of Iraq would now know peace.

Ned · April 10, 2003, 06:29

I wonder how many other Arab countries kept the events in Baghdad from their people? The speculation among the media folks is that Syria kept the news from the people because Assad feared an uprising.

GeneralTacticus · April 10, 2003, 07:23

Quote:

Isn't it nice how Rumsfeld catecorizes Saddam with the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Lenin , Ceaucescu... Brutal dictator have-beens...

Interesting that he ommitted Pol Pot, Suharto and various Latin American mass murderers as well.

mark13 · April 10, 2003, 07:26

Ned,

Don't know where you got your info that the BBC cut away from the statue toppling. I was watching BBC1 yesterday afternoon (that's the main BBC channel - not a news channel - and they had a special news report) that covered the toppling of the statue for a full hour, with a virtually hysterical commentator (reported in Iraq for many years, never seen anything like it etc.) in the background.

I'm pro-war, and I've been very impressed with the BBC coverage overall.

TheStinger · April 10, 2003, 08:37

The other thing I have realised about Rumsies satement is tHat Stalin whilst a very nast man could hardly be described as a "failed" dictator, he is the most succesful dictator of all time

rah · April 10, 2003, 08:42

Article from the Chicago Tribune this morning.
Slightly biased but not overly so.

Swift victory sends shock wave across Middle East

By Deborah Horan and Steve Franklin, Tribune staff reporters. Deborah Horan reported from Cairo and Stephen Franklin from Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Tribune foreign correspondent Christine Spolar in Gaza C
Published April 10, 2003

CAIRO -- The news spread quickly by word of mouth Wednesday on the clogged side streets of Cairo where Ramzy Shaaban parked his cab: Saddam Hussein had lost control of Baghdad after just a few days of battle.

"I didn't believe it," said the 38-year-old driver, until he found a television in a nearby cafe. There, he watched in dismay as Iraqis celebrated and cheered American troops.

"I was shocked," said Shaaban, describing the experience from the inside of his cab hours later. "I didn't think Baghdad would fall that easily."

Across the Arab world, news of the collapse of Hussein's regime in Baghdad was met with similar despair and disbelief that the cradle of Arab civilization could surrender so fast.

While some Arabs rejoiced over the regime's demise, many worried that the U.S. would take its struggle elsewhere in the Middle East. Some predicted that the American takeover of Iraq's day-to-day governance would fuel hatred of the U.S. They foresaw more protests and possibly acts of violence against the U.S. and its allies.

Mostly, Arabs expressed a profound sense of humiliation at the Americans' apparent ease in reaching the heart of Baghdad--in contrast to the stiff fighting in Basra, Nasariyah and other cities.

"I thought Baghdad would be hell in battle, but there was no battle," said Nouran el-Gemeay, a 24-year-old student at Cairo University. "Where was the Iraqi resistance that we saw in the other cities?"

Many could not accept the scenes of Iraqis welcoming the American forces. Welcoming the demise of Hussein's government was understandable. But clapping for U.S. soldiers? They searched for other explanations.

"I think that the Americans paid them to act like that for the cameras," said Rula Mawad, a housewife in central Damascus.

Others said the celebrations were not directed at the Americans.

"Iraqis are tired of war," said Abdullah Al-Ashaal, a political analyst at Cairo University. "They are happy because there will be no more bombing, not because of the Americans."

Welcome news to some

To be sure, some Arabs welcomed the absence of strong Iraqi resistance. That was particularly true in Kuwait and in Saudi Arabia.

In Kuwait, Sami al Nsif, a spokesman for the nation's foreign minister, looked forward to jubilant street celebrations for the successful U.S.-led effort.

"It's a joy," al Nsif said. "People are glad that it finished quickly and without much bloodshed. Now, we will be looking for what happened to the 600 prisoners of war who were taken years ago by the Iraqis."

Jamal Kashkoggi, editor of al Watan, a popular newspaper based in Abha, Saudi Arabia, said he was in a "state of ecstasy"

"I love the sense of freedom," Kashkoggi said. "It's freedom for the Iraqis. Whether it's from American or Martian invaders, all the Iraqis have to do now is build their freedoms."

But like many, Kashkoggi expected the takeover of Baghdad to stir worries among Arab leaders. "The Syrians will be nervous," he said.

Until the news of the regime's collapse in Baghdad, the editors at Okaz, a Saudi newspaper, had settled on a front-page headline that read: "America threatens Syria."

"The U.S. already has a legitimate cover [for fighting], so who's next?" asked Faheem al Hamid, the newspaper's executive managing editor.

Other worries voiced in the Middle East included suspicion that the United States was after Iraq's oil, that it intended to stay in Baghdad indefinitely, and that the military government it planned to set up would be friendly to Israel at the expense of the Palestinians. They saw America's professed plans to bring democracy to Iraq as a ploy to consolidate its interests in the region to the detriment of the Arabs.

"People say it is a war for Israel," said Hassan Nafaa, another political analyst at Cairo University. "This is a war for oil. The U.S. wants a pro-American government in Iraq whether it is democratic or not."

Shocked by sudden defeat

Palestinians, in particular, expressed a searing sense of defeat as they watched Iraqi resistance crumble.

"I couldn't image that the Iraqis would do this," said Ranya Abdul Hamwed, a fashionably dressed woman hailing a cab in Gaza City. "No dignity. No morals.

"If they [had overthrown Hussein] without American interference, with an intifada or an assassination, that would be better for them than a surrender and defeat to the Americans," said the 27-year-old teacher.

Many Palestinians had viewed Iraqi resistance through the prism of their own struggle against Israel, so Iraq's defeat became theirs.

"Oh, man. Just once we want to take victory," said Noman Ashour, 47, as he watched television footage of an Iraqi man smacking a poster of Hussein with a shoe.

"All our lives, we've been defeated. Is it right that we do not deserve life? Is it right that this is the end of everyone who carried principles and values?" he asked.

Did he mean Hussein was a man of values? "I'm not talking about Saddam. I'm talking about the people of Iraq. They prefer Roquefort cheese rather than their homeland."

The sense of despair in Gaza City ran deep, and spurred cynicism over what Palestinians see as Arab acquiescence in the face of U.S. military might.

"I wouldn't be surprised if the Americans would ask us to change the Koran," said Samir Abu Shahla, a businessman in Gaza, watching television in a small insurance company.

"Maybe the Arabs will protest a little," Abu Shahla said. "But at the end, they'll be good friends and change the Koran to what the Americans and Jews want. Why not?"

Worthingtons · April 10, 2003, 08:46

Yes, Very True Stinger, We might not be speakin German without him, but the shape of Europe would sure as hell be somewhat different.

gunkulator · April 10, 2003, 09:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
Lenin might have been the creator of Soviet Union, source of many evils, but his goals were good, and it's just plain wrong to bunch him with brutal murderers. Why not Marx, then?

Well, this site puts both Saddam Hussein and Lenin in the category of Secondary Level of Mass Murderers. There are numerous reference sources highlighted for those who wish to dig deeper. So lumping Saddam and Lenin in with Stalin and Hitler may not be completely accurate, it's really a matter of degree, not of kind.

gunkulator · April 10, 2003, 09:35

dp

Ned · April 10, 2003, 11:25

Quote:

Originally posted by mark13
Ned,

Don't know where you got your info that the BBC cut away from the statue toppling. I was watching BBC1 yesterday afternoon (that's the main BBC channel - not a news channel - and they had a special news report) that covered the toppling of the statue for a full hour, with a virtually hysterical commentator (reported in Iraq for many years, never seen anything like it etc.) in the background.

I'm pro-war, and I've been very impressed with the BBC coverage overall.

I heard it several times on FOX. They even quoted an editorial that was very much anti-war as the BBC's reaction to the events.

Do we see something different in the US than what you may see where you are? I know CNN has several editions depending on location.

mark13 · April 10, 2003, 11:30

Well, I don't know - but given Fox's track record I'm always sceptical of absolutely anything that's broadcast on that channel.

But certainly in this country (the UK), yesterday, at about 3pm, when the statue came down, they did a live simulcast with the main BBC channel (BBC1 - they interrupted the usual schedule) and the BBC News 24 channel, for at least an hour (may even have been as long as an hour and a half). They also had at least 2 of the main 5 radio stations that broadcast it live.

As I say - in any case, in a straight fight between FOX and the BBC, I know who's word I'd take.

gsmoove23 · April 10, 2003, 11:33

That Chicago Tribune article was one of the best I've seen.

One things for certain, pariah dictators all over the world are reconsidering the use of wide imperial avenues in their capitols and looking to Jenin or Gaza City for their models. Seriously, what was he thinking, did he make any attempt to block those roads?