Darth Sadr, "The Most Dangerous Man in Iraq" (no spam)

[jopperm2]

Let me start out by saying I mean no offense to Muqtada al-Sadr as I know very little about him. My opinion of him is in no way biased one way or the other.

I was in a counselor's office last week and I saw the cover of a (I believe it was) Time magazine. The image was of Sadr with a dark red background similar to the one behind a dark side character on KotOR. It's the first image I have attached. The caption said "Muqtada al-Sadr: The most dangerous man in Iraq."

The second image I have attached was from an Indian news agency that is not Islamic in nature.

What I'm trying to say is, how can we be so thoroughly brainwashed that this sort of "journalism" in America can go largely unchallenged. It's not like this Sithesque image of the man (who I must point out is a prominent religious leader) was on the cover of the New Republic or something. This is Time Magazine.

If India can refrain from printing the most evil looking image they could find, why on earth can't we? We have more Muslims in America than in Iraq for Pete's sake.

[fable]

The most dangerous men--I can't narrow it further--in Iraq for several years have been George W Bush, Dic! Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld. Muqtada al-Sadr should be very gracious towards them, since he owes everything he is to that trio.

[jopperm2]

I'm sure you're probably right, though I don't know.

All of the media that I'm exposed to seems to hint that he is somehow linked to sectarian strife, I wouldn't doubt that either.

Is he really the evil man that the image suggests though?

[fable]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jopperm2 I'm sure you're probably right, though I don't know. All of the media that I'm exposed to seems to hint that he is somehow linked to sectarian strife, I wouldn't doubt that either. Is he really the evil man that the image suggests though?

Please define evil in a civil war where an estimated 500,000 Iraqis were killed by invading forces to supposedly find weapons of mass destruction that the invaders knew ahead of time probably didn't exist. A war to topple a dictator, now convicted of genocide, whose main chemical weapons were provided by the Reagan administration (through Rumsfeld), and who is guilty of simply using them on more than the target we initially wanted him to kill in excruciating pain. With a new war waging among sectarian factions armed with all the weapons taken from depots we didn't have enough soldiers to defend--while our soldiers were being killed because they weren't issued (with the Secretary of Defense's awareness) the body armor they needed to survive.

Don't you think the relevancy of defining "evil" as belonging to any one party in this situation is a little unnecessary?

[jopperm2]

True, it's very hard to really define "evil" in a complex situation and evil in general seems to be status quo for anyone with power in Baghdad.

So, perhaps he's merely looking out for "his" people.. and perhaps "his" people aren't "our" people.. So we characterize him as evil.

As for Sadam.. Well. I tend to agree with you if I correctly infer your opinion. We call him a lot of names, but the bottom line is that I can't name a lot of modern leaders that haven't done just as many bad things as he did. Perhaps he was a bit hands on in some of the things he did, so it makes it easy to point the finger. His conviction though in the alleged "trial" that he had. I don't know. It seems to me that he had valid political motive for the things that were done.

I know that doesn't make it right, but since when does what's right fall into politics?

[dragon wench]

The portrayal of Sadr strikes me as very Orwellian (as in "1984"). There's definitely the sense of demonising "the enemy" without really giving justification or context.
Not that any of this is new, obviously...

As far as Sadam goes, he was a brutal thug and a dictator, period. But, he's hardly alone on that front, I could easily think of half a dozen (at least) similar leaders off of the top of my head, the only difference is that they were/are supported by US administrations. The sole reason, as Fable indicated, that particular Iraqui figures are painted as "evil" now, is because they stopped playing according to the US rulebook.

I never bought the whole portrayal of Sadam for the simple reason that targeting his oppresive regime was blatantly hypocritical and cowardly. Hypocritical for the reasons mentioned above, and cowardly because Bush et al didn't want to go after much larger countries (*cough* China *cough* ) with equally heinous human rights records, and that is largely because none of this has ever had anything to do with human rights or "evil."

[Faberge]

Not all that long time ago, last Monday, I was reading Newsweek at the library and the magazine had an article about this man. Here is a link to it: How Al-Sadr May Control U.S. Fate in Iraq - Newsweek: World News - MSNBC.com

Life is busy, thus good night and enjoy the day.

[fable]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jopperm2 True, it's very hard to really define "evil" in a complex situation and evil in general seems to be status quo for anyone with power in Baghdad. So, perhaps he's merely looking out for "his" people.. and perhaps "his" people aren't "our" people.. So we characterize him as evil.

[/QUOTE]

You might want to read this, especially the main section on the Myth of More. It's just an introduction, but it's an accurate assessment of the quagmire Dubya and his neocon radicals have drawn the US into.

[jopperm2]

Thanks for the link, fable. I don't exactly agree with everything there, but I do agree with some of it.

I didn't have a lot of time to read it, so I didn't get through everything. What does the author propose be done about Iraq?

I'm personally of the opinion that there is no solution to the sectarian differences in Iraq and it's destined to be the next Kashmir, forever entangled in a tug-of-war. I have no problem pulling out, mostly because I don't feel that we can "win" and frankly I don't care.

We did what we went there to do, Depose Sadam. That may not have been the stated goal, but that's what I believe the goal was. He's thoroughly deposed now and soon will be dead. I don't see any reason to stay other than political reasons of not seeming like the bad guy. It's a little late for that so why not cut and run?

[Moonbiter]

Jopperm2 wrote:

Quote:

We did what we went there to do, Depose Sadam. That may not have been the stated goal, but that's what I believe the goal was. He's thoroughly deposed now and soon will be dead. I don't see any reason to stay other than political reasons of not seeming like the bad guy. It's a little late for that so why not cut and run?

Actually, during his press conference with his stooge Tony Blair yesterday, Bush likened the war in Iraq to the US intervention in WW2! Based on his obviously well informed understanding of that particular conflict, he maintained that the war in Iraq can be won.

[jopperm2]

Okay, now that's just comical! You know, since Sadam had taken over the entire middle east and was executing Kurds by the million. Plus the overwhelming outcry from the international community for us to help.

You really would expect him to know a bit more about it considering his father's history. Oh well. I guess that's what we get for expecting him to know much of anything about the "barbarian" world.

[Moonbiter]

Yes, yes. The war in Iraq has been a World War since it started. At least according to Bush and Blair. Hence the backslapping and the bonding.

But back to the point: The US can't cut and run. Period. The horrendous social and mental backlash to US society in the aftermath of Vietnam is still such a festering open wound that backing out is not an option, especially not for the neocons. So now they need to invent new boogeymen to keep the conflict going. It's either win the war, or vanish completely as a political force for another 20 years, after which the public will have forgotten again. The one thing that keeps me up at night is the nightmare scenario, however unlikely, in which they actually manage to pull it off.