The shootings of demonstrators (whether they shoot first or otherwise) has me concerned on two fundamental questions:

1. Why didn't Saddam have to put up with these protests, marches, etc. (Erm... I'm not exactly *OLD*, so maybe he did once upon a time for all I know.)

2. How is it that people repressed for so long can so quickly and so vehemently find their voice against the system?

All i can think of is that the people must have been really really scared for Saddam's regime, and his secret police. I've read stories that if someone would have the guts to stand up against him, not only the person in question would get arrested, but his entire family.

Saddam ruled by fear. A fear of speaking out against the system or Saddam in anyway shape or form. I think the Iraqi's really don't want a US regime any more than they wanted Saddam, but they don't have that same fear anymore.

Well the first incident happened because the troops were occupying a school, and the Iraqi wanted them to leave so the kids could goto school. We are occupying those peoples home and they are probably distrustful out of years of indocrination to fear and distrust the Americans.

The second incident was in protest of the first.

Lots of tension and passion about these issues.

About Saddam and protestors...The people of Iraq probably knew they would begunned down, jailed, and tortured if they demonstrated against Saddam so they did not.

Perhaps the Iraqi's thought the Americans would withdraw if they made a big enough scene, it has happened before in other places in Iraq. It probably never occured to any of them that the U.S. would fire into a crowd, but who knows?

[ 05-01-2003, 12:26 AM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

<font color="#fcdbe4">There is also the factt hat there are a significant number of Iranian and Syrian errr... "freedom fighters" and religious figures stirring pots as well. </font>

[ 05-01-2003, 08:35 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

Well, I think Saddam and the Baathists in general killed upwards of 1 million communists and trade union organisers - and they are usually the roots of most successful protest (in my extremely biased opinion... [img]tongue.gif[/img] ). Also remember that a plea was made to the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people - to ignore them now is the icing on the cake as far as the injustive they have suffered is concerned. Ultimately you can't invade a country for the benefit of the inhabitants and then ignore them when they tell you how they want it run.

I agree with Barry, except that if they want it run as a religious state you can patiently explain how it will be a cold day in hell before you let that happen.

That said, it still doesn't help me understand how all these people, cowed for so long, suddenly found their voice. :confused: I'm not saying they shouldn't exercise it, mind you.

I will say that when the protests turn violent, they should be, and rightfully have been, shot. Freedom of speech should not be abused. We can't do it here, and they shouldn't do it there. And, someone should teach them the ignorance of shooting guns in the air during a "celebration." I mean, are they Muslim Iraqi citizens or are they Muslim rebel extremists?

Some anylyst on Fox news specualted that left-over Baath party loyalists were stirring up the crowds there, but I have seen no proof yet.

Well, as far as I'm concerned a religious state would not truly be a democratic one. Of course though, for me the only truly democratic state would be a workers state as in all other states the political institutions reflect the views of the ruling class. I don't think Iraq will get socialism for a while, but I'll settle for working class organisation, independant unions and so on. I strongly doubt thats on the coalition's agenda though, which is why I opposed the war in the first place.