If any journalists are reading this,

[msmcghee]

. . I have a question. Why, when you write or broadcast stories about how Iraqis are so happy about Saddam's capture, do you totally ignore the tribal reality of Iraqi politics.

The way I understand it, (and I'm no journalist, I just like to read up on this stuff before I form opinions) there are four major tribal units in Iraq.

Saddam represented the ruling Baathists for 35 years. They were ruthless. They jailed, tortured and shot the leaders and removed the other three tribes from power - the Kurds, the (anti-Baathist) Sunni's and the Shia's. The Shia's and Kurds especially hate Saddam and the Baathists.

They want nothing more than to parade Saddam's battered body through the streets and let it hang in the public square to be spit on and decompose - along with the remaining 5000 or so Baathists. Of course they are happy to see Saddam caught.

I know these fine points don't fit easily into the "Iraqi's are so happy to see Saddam is gone so they can finally have a wonderful democracy" story. The story that many stupid Americans now believe, thanks to you.

Do you not believe that they (the Shia's for sure) are biding their time, waiting for us to install a puppet government so they can move in and destroy it and take over - and exact their revenge by jailing, torturing and killing thousands of their political opponents. The only difference is this time it will be in the name of Allah, not Saddam.

I'm sure the same 60% or so who think Saddam was behind 9/11 fall for the "yearning for a happy democracy" story too. Don't you think this is finally important enough to be honest with us - or are job advancement and selling more ad space for your corporate employer still the only reason you do it?

[Mattforclark]

1. Baathist is not

a tribal group. It is a political party (although its members come mostly from Sunni's and mostly around Tikrit).

Within Sunni, Shi'ite, Kurd, there are multiple tribal groups. However, the Kurds are mostly pretty unified.

[msmcghee]

4. That's right.

I was referring to the tribal nature of the people in that region. i.e. following a strong militaristic patriarchal leader who you give allegience to. You support your guy with fanatical loyalty in hopes he will gain power and you and your family will share in the rewards.

That covers tribes in the ethnic sense, extended families, political parties, religious groups, etc.

[Mattforclark]

7. Yeah

just paying attention to minor points. :) But it is true that their is lots of overlap between different groupings that people give allegiance to.

It sounds to me like you have an excellent grasp of world history; the situation is not particularly stable...

[SpiralHawk]

2. Shed all hesitation

about maintaining a fundamental attitude of honesty in your reporting.

Falshood at any level smears the world with confusion and conflict.

You have a sacred mission to perform at this hour. Remember.

Honor the Messenger Tradition of our Turtle Island continent (North America).
Tell the truth without favor or malice.

-- Meegwich, SpiralHawk

[library_max]

3. And by the way, just to avoid any confusion:

Rush, you are not a journalist.

[msmcghee]

5. Every once in a while I write a post . .

. . just because I want to say what's on my mind. If it's worth starting a conversation, that's great - but it's OK if it just dribbles down and falls off the list too.

I said it and it's in the record.

;-)

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Oilwellian]

8. Uh huh. Right.

How nice of you to mention it again in this thread. I noticed you didn't say a word about the hundreds of posts on this website that are way ahead of the curve and politically savvy. Why is that? I'm assuming that's WHY you come here, right?