Iraq - Biggest shithole on planet Earth?

[KagePrototype]

repiV you're like talking to a teenager about not doing drugs. No matter what you say, they still won't change their mind.

But i still stand by my claim, if you havent been there, stop critisising it. You're basing your argument on facts you've seen on TV or have read in books, the web or in newspapers or even magazines. I can sit here all day listing things why its a better place, but unless youve been there, its about as futile as teaching you how to be reasonable.

If you're right and you know you're right, it must be easy to think up a list.

Right? Otherwise you're just avoiding the question.

 

[zleppelin]

Last time I checked, I don't live in a totalitarian dictatorship. So I don't really have much reason to downgrade to a battlefield, do I?

But since you have never lived in a totalitarian dictatorship, and have never lived in a battlefield (I suppose not), then how can you know which one is better? If you lived in a battlefield chances are you and all beloved ones would be dead by now.

 

[repiV]

But since you have never lived in a totalitarian dictatorship, and have never been in a battlefield (I suppose not), then how can you know which one is better?

Because I would rather be fighting for my life or freedom than living in servitude?
Because as someone who got rejected from the military on medical grounds, I don't have any major aversions to battle, and as a staunch defender of civil liberties I believe there is nothing worse than oppression?
Death counts aren't the be-all and end-all of tragedy, you know.

If you lived in a battlefield chances are you and all beloved ones would be dead by now.

And that assumption is based on...what?

 

[zleppelin]

Because I would rather be fighting for my life or freedom than living in servitude?
Because as someone who got rejected from the military on medical grounds, I don't have any major aversions to battle

That explains it all. Not everyone has this war and death mentality you know, some people actually want to live in peace.

and as a staunch defender of civil liberties I believe there is nothing worse than oppression?

I bet you are the same type of guy who supports the Patriot Act.

And that assumption is based on...what?

Probability and Statistics.

 

[repiV]

That explains it all. Not everyone has this war and death mentality you know, some people actually want to live in peace.

So do I. That doesn't mean we CAN always live in peace. Just about everyone here I would imagine feels strongly enough about SOMETHING in order to kill or die for it...and so long as that remains true - which it will - there will always be war. Nobody said life was friendly.
The privileges, opportunities and freedoms you enjoy have millions of people's blood all over them. You would do well to remember that.

I bet you are the same type of guy who supports the Patriot Act.

What are you smoking? I just said I'm a defender of civil liberties, did I not?

Probability and Statistics.

Oh, so over 50% of Iraqi citizens have died in this war? Right-o.

 

[zleppelin]

The life expentancy in Iraq is way lower than it is in North London. I know that for sure.

Even if only 1% of the population has died, it's a lot.

Let's see, Iraq is a country of 30 Million people. 300,000 deaths in 3 years is a lot.

 

[repiV]

The life expentancy in Iraq is way lower than it is in North London. I know that for sure.

The life expectancy in any third world country is way lower than it is in North London...

 

[zleppelin]

The life expectancy in any third world country is way lower than it is in North London...

Sources?

 

[586FAC75]

Iraq - Biggest shithole on planet Earth?

Never been to London then, eh?

 

[repiV]

Sources?

Isn't it pretty bloody obvious?

Link

 

[repiV]

Never been to London then, eh?

Birmingham nicer than London?

 

[zleppelin]

Isn't it pretty bloody obvious?

Link

Are we to assume that the life expentancy in North London is the same as that of ALL the United Kingdom? I want you to compare the life expentancy in North London to that of a battlefield.

 

[repiV]

Are we to assume that the life expentancy in North London is the same as that of ALL the United Kingdom? I want you to compare the life expentancy in North London to that of a battlefield.

Life expectancy in the UK varies from around 66 years in Glasgow (that's lower than Iraq's life expectancy of 69) to 82 in Kensington and Chelsea in South London. North London boroughs tend to be around the national average.

I was looking for a comparison of life expectancy by borough but couldn't find one. I did run into this though - London Divided. May be of interest for one reason or another.
Apparently 53% of children in Inner London live in poverty. The national average if I recall is 2.5%.

 

[zleppelin]

Life expectancy in the UK varies from around 66 years in Glasgow (that's lower than Iraq's life expectancy of 69) to 82 in Kensington and Chelsea in South London. North London boroughs tend to be around the national average.

I was looking for a comparison of life expectancy by borough but couldn't find one. I did run into this though - London Divided. May be of interest for one reason or another.
Apparently 53% of children in Inner London live in poverty. The national average if I recall is 2.5%.

And what is the life expentacy, as in, how many more years does a person of a given age have left to live, in a battlefield?

 

[repiV]

And what is the life expentacy, as in, how many more years does a person of a given age have left to live, in a battlefield?

What do you take me for, an investigative reporter/statistician/researcher combination?

 

[Solaris]

What the **** knghenry?
Stop sending Repriv to do pointless things.

 

[Ome_Vince]

Iraq is in a far worse condition now than it was under US-installed Saddam. Conflict in the Middle East has been raging for centuries (at least since the time of the Crusades) and the majority of it has come from external nations trying to impose some ideology or another. If history has taught us anything, it should have taught us at least three things: occupations solve nothing, Middle Eastern countries are notoriously hard to conquer (that includes ideologically at the barrel of a gun), and that one should be wary of Trojan horses .

If troops pull out now, there will be toppling of the current Iraqi puppet government and it's infrastructure like the badly built deck of cards that it is. But they will rebuild. They will survive. If the occupation ends today, hundreds of people may die; else, those same hundreds of people will die.

The people of Iraq have managed to look after themselves for 4,000 years. Hell, the universities were built in the area of Baghdad. The US has 200 years experiance with governing. Iraqi's have 4,000. They have overthrown countless foreign occupations in the past. They will do it again.



Besides, there's an even bigger shithole than Iraq. The United Shitholes of America!!

I agree, though a bit of a correction: war between the MidEast and Europe has been going on for much much longer than the Crusades. If anything the Crusades were another chain -> Europe's retarded response to countless Islamic invasions.
And even before that the Romans went over there and raped the MidEast etc (the chain goes on for as far as i can read back lol).
Europe and the MidEast have been going at it for thousands of years, and it seems like a sick act of God that oil is so rich in that region (since after the 16th century, when Europe's power started, focus on the MidEast pretty much faded away because their was no value there at all, then oil came along, bleh).

As for Iraq, if we want to summarize whats happening there, its all the worlds "foreign policy" at works over power.
The Americans and the coalition are in there based on a lie, but now actually trying to "fix the mess they started". Then almost all surrounding countries like Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran etc are involved in this feast of "its free reign to blow up ppl from the west and their helpers" and sponsoring the whole Sjite/Sunnite war, in an attempt to destabilize the country and found a new Iran.
Then there's European countries and parts of the Islamic population there, that are angry at world events, and travel over to Iraq to blow up Americans and coalition forces etc.

It just goes on, it seems everybody is involved in Iraq in some way, and everybody has their personal goals, from creating fascist states, simply finding a way to fight Americans, a religious war, or to exploite Iraq for its oil.
In the end, its the Iraqi's that suffer, for their land has been chosen as battlefield.

 

[repiV]

Well, if it keeps him/her/it entertained.

Shit, I just got off the phone with my dad. Apparently my mum just had an epileptic seizure - and she doesn't have epilepsy.
I hope it's just stress or something...off to the hospital.

 

[Adabiviak]

I don't suppose an externally imposed democracy would be a democracy.

 

[zleppelin]

Well, if it keeps him/her/it entertained.

Shit, I just got off the phone with my dad. Apparently my mum just had an epileptic seizure - and she doesn't have epilepsy.
I hope it's just stress or something...off to the hospital.

I hope your mom gets better.

 

[Absinthe]

yup ..no invasion + occupation = no dead iraqis

The initial invasion doesn't justify or absolve responsibility of the subsequent crimes committed by insurgents. No, the US is not entirely to blame.

And Dynasty, for the love of God, shut your ass up.

 

[zleppelin]

The initial invasion doesn't justify or absolve responsibility of the subsequent crimes committed by insurgents. No, the US is not entirely to blame.

And Dynasty, for the love of God, shut your ass up.

Correct, the US is not entirely to blame. The 19 hijackers, for example, also share some of the blame. To some extent though. If you think about it, it was not their fault that US security wasn't able to foil their plans.

 

[Absinthe]

Correct, the US is not entirely to blame. The 19 hijackers also share some of the blame.

Dead wrong. The 19 hijackers are entirely irrelevant to Iraq.

 

[Solaris]

?!?!?!???

 

[zleppelin]

Dead wrong. The 19 hijackers are entirely irrelevant to Iraq.

Do you seriously think that the September 11 attacks did not help the Bush administration cement its case against Iraq?

 

[Dynasty]

Dead wrong. The 19 hijackers are entirely irrelevant to Iraq.

*sprays coffee everywhere as he reads it*

And you tell ME to shut up?

 

[Dynasty]

The life expectancy in any third world country is way lower than it is in North London...

I REALLY wish i could like..slap you or just beat you to a pulp right now.

You've just proven how much of a capatalistic pig you are. Burn in hell biatch.

 

[delusional]

whats wrong with being a capitalist pig?
isnt most of this bloodshed in baghdad and the rest of iraq relatively safer though?

 

[kirovman]

I REALLY wish i could like..slap you or just beat you to a pulp right now.

You've just proven how much of a capatalistic pig you are. Burn in hell biatch.

Uhh, if you disagree with him, I'd suggest addressing his arguement rather than threatening violence.

 

[Absinthe]

Do you seriously think that the September 11 attacks did not help the Bush administration cement its case against Iraq?

I'm talking in regards to reality. The hijackers of 9/11 held no stake in Iraq. They are responsible for the collapse of the twin towers. The decision to invade Iraq was entirely of the US administration's own doing. There is no legitimate causal relationship between the hijackers and the invasion.

So yeah, Dynasty. Shut up. You're spraying stupid everywhere.

 

[DaMaN]

For those who claim that the only acceptable facts are being there yourself, or seeing it for yourself, you are indulging in a logical fallicy. By your logic, you cannot know the world is round. You cannot know that there is another side to the moon. You've never been there, have you? Have you been to the pyramids? No? How do you know they exist? Have you been to Antartica? How do you know that it exists? I'll bet Antartica is actually a very temperate place where daisies grow and naked women dance around! By your logic, you cannot know that it isn't, because you haven't been there!

So therefore, we need other sources than out own eyes and ears, or else there won't be anything to base any argument upon.

Regardless if you've been there or not, Iraq, in my opinion, is a quagmire. Sure, you could describe it as a shithole.

Reasons? Though I might not have been there, I know people who have. Even if you ignore their testemony and video footage, there are other things that are a lot harder to argue against.

It has been pointed out numberous times that according to a report 655,000 people have died as a result of the occupation. (An occupation, as stated several times before, having absolutely NOTHING to do with avenging 9/11, that is based on false intelligence, and that is certainly not to help the people there out.). In my opinion, anywhere where that many people are killed as the result of a military occupation is likely to be a shithole. When you look at the facts as recorded by the cia world factboook, you cannot deny that life expectancy (a prime factor in shitholieness) has decreased dramatically. 3% of the population is over 65. Median age is not even 20. Unemployment is up to 30%. They don't even know how many people are living below the poverty line. More than half the population cannot read or write.

You cannot deny the facts. Or rather, you CAN deny the facts, but by doing so you have pretty much invalidated any sort of argument you can make to the contrary.

---

I agree, though a bit of a correction: war between the MidEast and Europe has been going on for much much longer than the Crusades. If anything the Crusades were another chain -> Europe's retarded response to countless Islamic invasions.
And even before that the Romans went over there and raped the MidEast etc (the chain goes on for as far as i can read back lol).
Europe and the MidEast have been going at it for thousands of years, and it seems like a sick act of God that oil is so rich in that region (since after the 16th century, when Europe's power started, focus on the MidEast pretty much faded away because their was no value there at all, then oil came along, bleh).

That's a good point - forgot about those romans And everyone before them. The Middle East has been in conflict for a very long time. Why is this? The Middle East is the "roof of the world". If you control the Middle East, you control all easy land path access (and thus trading routes) to europe from south asia and africa. Even today with sea and air travel, the Middle East is central, not only because of its oil. From the Middle East, you can prevent easy trade between all across the "old world" (non-americas) area. From the Middle East, you can easily launch attacks at any target around the (non-american) world - IF you have a big enough army.

The Middle East is the most strategic place for any nation that wants to exert control over the world.

As for Iraq, if we want to summarize whats happening there, its all the worlds "foreign policy" at works over power.
The Americans and the coalition are in there based on a lie, but now actually trying to "fix the mess they started". Then almost all surrounding countries like Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran etc are involved in this feast of "its free reign to blow up ppl from the west and their helpers" and sponsoring the whole Sjite/Sunnite war, in an attempt to destabilize the country and found a new Iran.
Then there's European countries and parts of the Islamic population there, that are angry at world events, and travel over to Iraq to blow up Americans and coalition forces etc.

It just goes on, it seems everybody is involved in Iraq in some way, and everybody has their personal goals, from creating fascist states, simply finding a way to fight Americans, a religious war, or to exploite Iraq for its oil.
In the end, its the Iraqi's that suffer, for their land has been chosen as battlefield.

Yes, it's the Iraqi's that suffer .

As I stated above, the Middle East (and Iraq) is the central point to hold in order to control the world - both economically and militarially. Whoever controls the Middle East has a key strategic position for Europe, Africa, and Asia. Nowhere else in the world exists a place where three continents converge. For the US, this is a very important part of the world, for if they can get a stronghold established, they will be in a position to dictate their will to the entire world (even more so than today). So Iraq (and the rest of the Middle East) is today's battlefield.

That seems to be what the US's plan was - prop up Saddam with money and guns, wait until ten years of sanctions had reduced Iraq to a hellhole, then go in there, knock him out, and be hailed as "liberators". Unfortunately, this time it didn't work as they had planned. What is happening now is that the Iraqi people are fed up with foreign intervention and are fighting back. Not the "terrorists", the Iraqis themselves. It's the same as when the British, Europeans and Romans before them invaded. Iraqi people, and people in the Middle East, and people ANYWHERE, will not allow foreign forces to stay bombing their houses for long.

It's quite tragic, the economic crisis the US is going through means that they must expand their market in order to keep an inflating economy, and to ensure that market is secure, it must be in the most central place in the world - the Middle East. It's not just about oil, by bombing out the entire iraqi infrastructure, they've been able to reap huge profits from selling reconstruction contracts. Those reconstruction contracts ensure that the US will have a secure economic foothold in the middle east, thereby allowing them to exert influence towards anyone in the surrounding areas (namely, the rest of the world). Unless, of course, the current puppet government gets overthrown. If that happens, all guarentees that government had will be wiped out. Therefore, it is essential to the US that they keep Iraq under their control (militarially or otherwise). But what does this mean to the Iraqis? When a government is overthrown (regardless for what reasons), the entire country is tossed into turmoil. When the US invaded Iraq, they didn't (couldn't) just bomb out the parliament buildings, they bombed cities and houses and hospitals and playgrounds. Along with an invading force comes lack of clean water, food, education, healthcare - basically anything the old government provided. And unless the new government provides this with rapidity, people start dying. 655,000 have died so far, in little over three years. And when people start dying, they start looking at who's shooting the bullets that are killing them. Bingo! They're comming from some foreign army who doesn't even speak your language. These foreign people shoot you on sight if you try to run for food or water, they've blown up your schools, hospitals, recreational areas. They've blown up your brother, shot your sister, arrested your parents, and silenced your friends.

What the hell do you think you're going to do?

Fight. The Iraqi people are fighting for survival. And there's nothing more dangerous than someone fighting for survival. The US are trying to subdue them, and they aren't being subdued.

So, yea. Shithole is an apt description of Iraq's current state.

 

[kirovman]

I've never heard anyone deny that Iraq was in a desperate state of affairs (apart from Georgie, obviously) until today.

 

[zleppelin]

For those who claim that the only acceptable facts are being there yourself, or seeing it for yourself, you are indulging in a logical fallicy. By your logic, you cannot know the world is round. You cannot know that there is another side to the moon. You've never been there, have you? Have you been to the pyramids? No? How do you know they exist? Have you been to Antartica? How do you know that it exists? I'll bet Antartica is actually a very temperate place where daisies grow and naked women dance around! By your logic, you cannot know that it isn't, because you haven't been there!

So therefore, we need other sources than out own eyes and ears, or else there won't be anything to base any argument upon.

Regardless if you've been there or not, Iraq, in my opinion, is a quagmire. Sure, you could describe it as a shithole.

Reasons? Though I might not have been there, I know people who have. Even if you ignore their testemony and video footage, there are other things that are a lot harder to argue against.

It has been pointed out numberous times that according to a report 655,000 people have died as a result of the occupation. (An occupation, as stated several times before, having absolutely NOTHING to do with: avenging 9/11, based on false intelligence, and certainly not to help the people there out.). In my opinion, anywhere where that many people are killed as the result of a military occupation is likely to be a shithole. When you look at the facts as recorded by the cia world factboook, you cannot deny that life expectancy (a prime factor in shitholieness) has decreased dramatically. 3% of the population is over 65. Median age is not even 20. Unemployment is up to 30%. They don't even know how many people are living below the poverty line. More than half the population cannot read or write.

You cannot deny the facts. Or rather, you CAN deny the facts, but by doing so you have pretty much invalidated any sort of argument you can make to the contrary.

---


That's a good point - forgot about those romans And everyone before them. The Middle East has been in conflict for a very long time. Why is this? The Middle East is the "roof of the world". If you control the Middle East, you control all easy land path access (and thus trading routes) to europe from south asia and africa. Even today with sea and air travel, the Middle East is central, not only because of its oil. From the Middle East, you can prevent easy trade between all across the "old world" (non-americas) area. From the Middle East, you can easily launch attacks at any target around the (non-american) world - IF you have a big enough army.

The Middle East is the most strategic place for any nation that wants to exert control over the world.


Yes, it's the Iraqi's that suffer .

As I stated above, the Middle East (and Iraq) is the central point to hold in order to control the world - both economically and militarially. Whoever controls the Middle East has a key strategic position for Europe, Africa, and Asia. Nowhere else in the world exists a place where three continents converge. For the US, this is a very important part of the world, for if they can get a stronghold established, they will be in a position to dictate their will to the entire world (even more so than today). So Iraq (and the rest of the Middle East) is today's battlefield.

That seems to be what the US's plan was - prop up Saddam with money and guns, wait until ten years of sanctions had reduced Iraq to a hellhole, then go in there, knock him out, and be hailed as "liberators". Unfortunately, this time it didn't work as they had planned. What is happening now is that the Iraqi people are fed up with foreign intervention and are fighting back. Not the "terrorists", the Iraqis themselves. It's the same as when the British, Europeans and Romans before them invaded. Iraqi people, and people in the Middle East, and people ANYWHERE, will not allow foreign forces to stay bombing their houses for long.

It's quite tragic, the economic crisis the US is going through means that they must expand their market in order to keep an inflating economy, and to ensure that market is secure, it must be in the most central place in the world - the Middle East. It's not just about oil, by bombing out the entire iraqi infrastructure, they've been able to reap huge profits from selling reconstruction contracts. Those reconstruction contracts ensure that the US will have a secure economic foothold in the middle east, thereby allowing them to exert influence towards anyone in the surrounding areas (namely, the rest of the world). Unless, of course, the current puppet government gets overthrown. If that happens, all guarentees that government had will be wiped out. Therefore, it is essential to the US that they keep Iraq under their control (militarially or otherwise). But what does this mean to the Iraqis? When a government is overthrown (regardless for what reasons), the entire country is tossed into turmoil. When the US invaded Iraq, they didn't (couldn't) just bomb out the parliament buildings, they bombed cities and houses and hospitals and playgrounds. Along with an invading force comes lack of clean water, food, education, healthcare - basically anything the old government provided. And unless the new government provides this with rapidity, people start dying. 655,000 have died so far, in little over three years. And when people start dying, they start looking at who's shooting the bullets that are killing them. Bingo! They're comming from some foreign army who doesn't even speak your language. These foreign people shoot you on sight if you try to run for food or water, they've blown up your schools, hospitals, recreational areas. They've blown up your brother, shot your sister, arrested your parents, and silenced your friends.

What the hell do you think you're going to do?

Fight. The Iraqi people are fighting for survival. And there's nothing more dangerous than someone fighting for survival. The US are trying to subdue them, and they aren't being subdued.

So, yea. Shithole is an apt description of Iraq's current state.

That was a damn good read.

 

[Polaris]

yup ..no invasion + occupation = no dead iraqis

Well, I'm not sure...

 

[DaMaN]

Well, I'm not sure...

Funny that...

 

[DaMaN]

That was a damn good read.

Thank you.

 

[Ome_Vince]

Good read Daman, always enjoy reading your posts.
Though the situation is more broader than that. The Middle-East is indeed an important place to control now, but it wasn't to start out with.
The only value after the Roman occupation ended, was a religious value.
When the Byzantines were getting wiped out by Islamic nomads, they called for help to pope Urban II.
Europe, allready facing Islamic invasions through Spain and southern France, saw its chance and responded with the most retarded action ever (not once, but a total of 6-7 crusades were held).
This worsened an already poor relationship.
After Europe ended its Dark-Ages (after Islam had spread into Austria even), Europe started its colonial behavior in Africa, South America, North America and Asia, Europe became so powerful and the Middle-East fell into a shitpool. This pretty much "Saved" Christianity as Islam was driven back.
There wasn't any significant importance in the Middle-East (hence there was no focus there for further invasion).
Only certain british and french traderoutes through the Middle-East were important, but not until the fossil-fuel revolution has the Middle-East been of any value or strategical importance.
As of now, the Middle-East is indeed the most important region to control, and i agree with you.
Yet i just wanted to point out, that the Middle-East is not a sad part of the world always pissed on by the West, because thats not true. The Middle-East did its share of wiping out Europeans, conquering Europe and raping Africa (as the Berber people can explain in fine detail).
Islam, just as Christianity was spread by the Sword, which is where a lot of modern-day religious problems come from.

As for financial importance, the only way this will ever end, since America is but a player in the game, no more than that, is when fossil-fuel no longer rules the world.
When that happens, the Middle-East will be left alone, and somebody else will get the shit
Then the only revolution i would like to see happen, is religious revolutions to make everything more secular, so hopefully ancient religious conflicts, and oppression will end.

Anyways, good read, i agree with most of it.

 

[kirovman]

As for financial importance, the only way this will ever end, since America is but a player in the game, no more than that, is when fossil-fuel no longer rules the world.
When that happens, the Middle-East will be left alone, and somebody else will get the shit

Hmm, there's still the matter of Israel.

I don't see most Muslim nations accepting it in at least this or indeed the next generation.

 

[el Chi]

You can't tell a country they want a democracy... least not in a region where they are surrounded by authoritarian countries.

Agreed. I think that Mr.Fusion's right in saying that Iraq mightn't have been ready for democracy, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that was because they were "primitive".

You've been under the rule of a totalitarian dictatorship for 24 years, then suddenly the bombings that have been going on regularly since the invasion of Kuwait intensify dramatically, and foreign soldiers come in and violence the likes of which you've never seen before starts and just doesn't stop.

They then tell you - whilst the country is still in pieces - that you're free. You look around at where you've lived, grown up and whatnot and see the destruction - do you feel free? Unlikely.

They then tell you that there are these people who you can help choose to lead your country. Chances are you've never voted before and it's possible you don't even know what voting is. Not because you're "primitive", but because it's something that has never been an option open to you in your lifetime.
It's very likely you've never heard of these people you're supposed to be voting for.

How the hell are you going to be ready for "democracy" when it's an alien concept?
How the hell are you going to be ready for "democracy" when the people you're supposed to be giving power to are completely unknown to you?
How the hell are you going to be ready for "democracy" when your country is in a worse state than it has ever been in?

 

[Polaris]

Funny that...

Oh, yes. Rummsfeld is responsible for all Saddams crimes, Stern told me this rumor too...

You've been under the rule of a totalitarian dictatorship for 24 years, then suddenly the bombings that have been going on regularly since the invasion of Kuwait intensify dramatically, and foreign soldiers come in and violence the likes of which you've never seen before starts and just doesn't stop.

My country was under the rule of red dictatorship under 40 long years and Russian soldiers and tanks killed many people here... but we never killed, burned alive other people for their other religion, never killed diplomats and people from foreign countries, etc. It's all about mentality and culture, not about situation.