Q for Krash

[Dionysos]

Since the car bombings took place in Basra - an area generally considered to be 'British controlled' - is the government in the UK taking any extra heat for this turn of events? I mean, is it taking more than was directed at it before the bombings?

I hadn't seen much UK press on it, so I wasn't sure what is being said.

Originally posted by Dionysos
Since the car bombings took place in Basra - an area generally considered to be 'British controlled' - is the government in the UK taking any extra heat for this turn of events? I mean, is it taking more than was directed at it before the bombings?

I hadn't seen much UK press on it, so I wasn't sure what is being said.

In addition.....Krash.....you had commented that such events didn't happen in UK controlled areas because the Brits took a better approach to occupation. Was this an aberration or an ominous crack in the damn? My hopes clearly are for the former - curious to hear your thoughts.

[bfp]

Originally posted by xiannaix
In addition.....Krash.....you had commented that such events didn't happen in UK controlled areas because the Brits took a better approach to occupation. Was this an aberration or an ominous crack in the damn? My hopes clearly are for the former - curious to hear your thoughts.

Im a little anxious to hear this one...

[Krash]

Originally posted by Dionysos
Since the car bombings took place in Basra - an area generally considered to be 'British controlled' - is the government in the UK taking any extra heat for this turn of events? I mean, is it taking more than was directed at it before the bombings?

I hadn't seen much UK press on it, so I wasn't sure what is being said.

It has been given surprisingly little air time here, tbh, not half as much as what has been given to events in Baghdad by american news services, from what I've seen. The government isn't taking any more heat than it has done ever since we first invaded, for a number of reasons - mainly that the British public is used to "terrorism", 50 years or so of it from the IRA et al, and it isn't news worthy - the train explosion in NK has got more coverage.

Originally posted by xiannaix
In addition.....Krash.....you had commented that such events didn't happen in UK controlled areas because the Brits took a better approach to occupation. Was this an aberration or an ominous crack in the damn? My hopes clearly are for the former - curious to hear your thoughts.

Given events in the time that we've been occupying Iraq, I know of only one event that has occurred that have caused any sort of outrage in the UK - the death of the 6 military policemen about 6 months ago or so, as I noted above this was low on the news lists, about third item on the 10 o'clock news, irrc. It would seem to be the exception that proves the rule, though I don't know who is even suspected of this attack just yet. The one thing that I have found quite worrying in the reporting of the attack is the demonstrations that followed, against Britsh forces, for NOT keeping order.

ie more blame was attributed to occupying forces not preventing the attack than was apportioned to those those who carried it out.

This is something that I've not noticed in reporting of attacks carried out in other sectors of control, though of course it wouldn't surprise me if that were the case. If that is the case, that the public rise up against what they consider to be an ineffective occupation, that may well lead us to more problems than we could possibly consider, whilst also reinforcing something that myself and others have said on this board previously:

Iraqi's, in the majority, had better, SAFER lives with Saddam, than they do with us. Currently, at least.

[Dionysos]

Originally posted by Krash
Iraqi's, in the majority, had better, SAFER lives with Saddam, than they do with us. Currently, at least.

If they weren't being rounded up by the Secret Police.

[Krash]

Originally posted by Dionysos
If they weren't being rounded up by the Secret Police.

Indeed. Though they may of lived in fear, they were in very little danger of being hit by a stray bullet, or blown up by a car bomb. As with all things, it's relative.

Originally posted by Krash
Indeed. Though they may of lived in fear, they were in very little danger of being hit by a stray bullet, or blown up by a car bomb. As with all things, it's relative.

It is relative but given the two choices....

[Krash]

Originally posted by xiannaix
It is relative but given the two choices....

Well, this is the thing - it isn't much of a choice.

A - Live in fear, no matter what you do.
B - Live in fear, because you oppose Saddam.

imo it's between a rock and a hard place.

Originally posted by Krash
Well, this is the thing - it isn't much of a choice.

A - Live in fear, no matter what you do.
B - Live in fear, because you oppose Saddam.

imo it's between a rock and a hard place.

I am not sure I agree with the first choice - that it is stated correctly.

The second, fear of Saddam we can agree on and it would be the worst choice.

Now, with the first - the fear is of violence associated with the instability in Iraq. Hopefully that will end for the people of Iraq soon.

They (and the international community) have wanted a timetable for turning authority over to the people.

That date is coming soon.

Then they will have to decide what kind of nation they wish for themselves.

This is not a choice that would have been available under Saddam.

[DJPePe]

What's worse?

Living under a secular dictator or living under a fanatical theocratical ruler?