Still Hating America.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
If the Iraq people are so willing to fight and die, why didn't they do it with Sadamm? I know the Sunnis would have no reason, and broad based revolt were Chemical attacked, but why wasn't there some onging resistance fro the Shites in Baghdad?

Much as I would hate to question Howard Stern's knowledge of Iraqi politics and history, there were ongoing Shiite resistance movements under Saddam which outlived him -- along with a few attempted military coups. The resistance was focused, of course, in the South -- but also operated in the Shiite enclaves of Bagdhad. The Dawa movement and the operations of SCIRI (HQ in Iran) come to mind .

These movements rarely engaged in open confflict or armed attacks, though. The explanation is that Saddam was so damn ruthless and his secret police were so damn efficient that such armed resistance was barely possible.

Consider the operation for which he was sentenced to death. A half-dozen guys (probably Dawa) took a few shots at a Saddam motorcade. The army and secret police moved in and scooped up a couple hundred men from the village near the attack. Vigorous torture and collective punishment ensues, and 148 people are executed for their alleged crimes. Combine this with a environment of constant indoctrination in the media and schools --kids taught Saddam is next to God and encouraged to inform on anyone including their parents.

Nothing like today's insurgency was possible.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you realize the part about Cheney was an insult, though, don't you?

It sure could be taken that way.

S_A_M

[Adder]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Much as I would hate to question Howard Stern's knowledge of Iraqi politics and history, there were ongoing Shiite resistance movements under Saddam which outlived him -- along with a few attempted military coups. The resistance was focused, of course, in the South -- but also operated in the Shiite enclaves of Bagdhad. The Dawa movement and the operations of SCIRI (HQ in Iran) come to mind .

These movements rarely engaged in open confflict or armed attacks, though. The explanation is that Saddam was so damn ruthless and his secret police were so damn efficient that such armed resistance was barely possible.

Consider the operation for which he was sentenced to death. A half-dozen guys (probably Dawa) took a few shots at a Saddam motorcade. The army and secret police moved in and scooped up a couple hundred men from the village near the attack. Vigorous torture and collective punishment ensues, and 148 people are executed for their alleged crimes. Combine this with a environment of constant indoctrination in the media and schools --kids taught Saddam is next to God and encouraged to inform on anyone including their parents.

Nothing like today's insurgency was possible.

S_A_M

I had assumed that Hank was implying that such stability is therefore clearly attainable in today's environment as well.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
scoreboard?

Good vintage today?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Adder
I had assumed that Hank was implying that such stability is therefore clearly attainable in today's environment as well.

I just realized my answer completely ignored the Kurds -- who maintained an open armed resistance for the last 20 years of Saddam's regime -- with and without US protection.

But maybe you're right, I have a terrible time getting Hank's posts -- so I took it as a serious question.

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
I had assumed that Hank was implying that such stability is therefore clearly attainable in today's environment as well.

ummm, not w/o strict crack downs beyond what we could sanction, so no. Maybe after we leave.

I knew the Kurds and the south revolted and were chemical attacked or otherwise mass murdered. But I had not heard of any resistance within Baghdad. Today people are willing to blow themselves up- back then the shites seemed to just take it. If you are willing to blow yourself up, what could scare you about what Sadamm might do to you? or is the blowing up mostly a sunni thing?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
Good vintage today?

scoreboard is trash talking 101. Say you are ahead in a game (typically b-ball) and someone on the other team starts trash talking about how he used you on a play, you look at the score, then back at him and say "scoreboard?" it means you should stop trying to insult me, because you are way behind.

You would never hear it from me, because you would never make it on any court where I might compete, in any activity in which I might compete.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
ummm, not w/o strict crack downs beyond what we could sanction, so no. Maybe after we leave.

My bad. I thought you were sarcactically suggesting that such crackdowns were appropriate.

Today people are willing to blow themselves up- back then the shites seemed to just take it. If you are willing to blow yourself up, what could scare you about what Sadamm might do to you? or is the blowing up mostly a sunni thing?

I think Hezbollah (sp?) is credited as inviting suicide bombing, and it is a Shia organization.

Perhaps they were just less outraged by Saddam than by American occupation. Or maybe the idea that their whole family or village will be killed and not just them is enough of a deterrent. I don't know.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
scoreboard is trash talking 101. Say you are ahead in a game (typically b-ball) and someone on the other team starts trash talking about how he used you on a play, you look at the score, then back at him and say "scoreboard?" it means you should stop trying to insult me, because you are way behind.

You would never hear it from me, because you would never make it on any court where I might compete, in any activity in which I might compete.

Apparently my Hank-translator is entirely off today.

But, for the record, I have never thought of the use of "scoreboard" in that context to be a question.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Adder
Apparently my Hank-translator is entirely off today.

But, for the record, I have never thought of the use of "scoreboard" in that context to be a question.

maybe because you never had an answer?

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
maybe because you never had an answer?

You know, I was never much of a talker on the court. Given the ample opportunities to throw a well-timed pick or elbow, I never found it necessary.

eta: And because most of the time it was surrounded by the words "check the" and "bitch" or some such variation.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you realize the part about Cheney was an insult, though, don't you?

I don't think it necessarily was, but if it was then we surely agree about how appropriate that was. I still think the interesting point is that if we start bombing Iran, we strengthen the current regime.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't think it necessarily was, but if it was then we surely agree about how appropriate that was. I still think the interesting point is that if we start bombing Iran, we strengthen the current regime.

everything I post if an effort to make you all start thinking critically.

How do we strengthen the "current regime" when we take out it's military? Well, we turn the opposition to having a common enemy with the regime. But so what. just like in sadamm's Iraq, what will the opposition ever do?

And as to whether the Cheney comment was an insult, I asked Gatti for a scenario under which it wasn't. He couldn't come up with one. Can you?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
everything I post if an effort to make you all start thinking critically.

Many of your posts are provocative. So that's something.

How do we strengthen the "current regime" when we take out it's military? Well, we turn the opposition to having a common enemy with the regime. But so what. just like in sadamm's Iraq, what will the opposition ever do?

Do you suppose they were saying the same thing about Iran in 1976?

And as to whether the Cheney comment was an insult, I asked Gatti for a scenario under which it wasn't. He couldn't come up with one. Can you?

Yes. It depends very much on the tenor of the conversation to that point.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Do you suppose they were saying the same thing about Iran in 1976?

if, by "they", you mean the islamists, I am encouraged by your question.

otoh is you meant "kum bah ya" I am going to get a sock on DU so I can start posting stuff here.