Iran and Iraq-problems-outlook-discussion

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I'm afraid I don't share your optimism. All depends on the existance of those future improvements and at this point we are miles away from realising them. If you ask me the very idea of future improvements is at this time even unrealistic.

Also, if the only thing achieved after years of causing so much long-lasting damage, is a couple of oil barrels more than before, then the current focus for repairing Iraq is disgracefully askew. Oil is a lousy choice of priority.

On the contrary, it is one of the most important priorities possible to have, because it is Iraq's most important source of revenue. The Iraqi economy depends upon oil. The major interest of international companies in Iraq is oil. The ability of laborers to get a job in Iraq is very dependent on the state of the economy, and thus on the state of Iraq's oil production. So I strongly disagree. This is crucial to the reconstruction of Iraq.

Obviously, reconstruction of Iraq has been very much delayed by internal violence. Thus security has been the number 1 priority for our forces in Iraq. In the months since our troop surge this year, violence has diminished significantly in the country. That is not a future improvement but a current improvement with current consequences for the Iraqi people.

[The Gaffer]

I agree with Lief here, in that oil is the main priority, and I think we're seeing the true motives behind the war in the first place.

But I think it's absolutely disgraceful to see the hawks congratulating themselves. Violence is still far worse than it was before the war, civil society is still far worse, utilities, unemployment, refugees (internal and external) etc etc.

4K American lives, up to 1m Iraqis, long-term political and economic instability and a probable Shia state emerging within Iran's sphere of influence, and we're not even back at square one yet. Nice going.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I agree with Lief here, in that oil is the main priority, and I think we're seeing the true motives behind the war in the first place.

They say that security is their number 1 priority. And even if your real interest is oil, having security your highest priority makes sense. You can't have oil without security.

I suspect that oil has been very high on the list of things to fix up in Iraq, though.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

But I think it's absolutely disgraceful to see the hawks congratulating themselves. Violence is still far worse than it was before the war, civil society is still far worse, utilities, unemployment, refugees (internal and external) etc etc.

All of the negative things you mentioned here might change. One can look at virtually any war and see that those things existed during it. The question is whether those things will still exist after it.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

4K American lives, up to 1m Iraqis, long-term political and economic instability and a probable Shia state emerging within Iran's sphere of influence, and we're not even back at square one yet. Nice going.

Change takes time. Being attacked by many insurgent groups does not help reconstruction to occur. Freedom sometimes comes at the price of time, blood and money.

Besides, many of the things you have just blamed the US for actually are primarily the responsibility of insurgents in Iraq. They are the killers that are purposefully targeting civilians, trying to start civil war, fomenting anarchy, and seeking to create political and economic instability. The US is working hard to prevent all of those things.

Shia and Sunni militias, Al Qaeda remnants, Saddam loyalists and others are the real forces to blame for the destruction in Iraq. The US should be praised for withstanding attacks from Iraqis and working to repair Iraq in spite of them.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Besides, many of the things you have just blamed the US for actually are primarily the responsibility of insurgents in Iraq.

Insurgents that would not exist today if we had not invaded in the first place.

You really have to look big picture. For all of Saddam's faults he did serve some major economic, and security, purposes. Purposes which George Bush Sr. understood.

1) He was ruthless, but that's what was needed to hold the Shia, Sunni and Kurds together.

2) He was basically a secular leader, with very little ties to muslim extremism.

3) He had no ties to Al Qaeda.

4) He provided a balance to Iran. Their hatred for one another kept both in check.

As a result of invasion, we've destabilized the whole region and possibly even spurred on more muslim extremism than existed beforehand. If Pakistan and/or Iran falls to muslim rule, we will have been the spark that ignited the fire.

We've gained nothing over the past five or so years, and lost a lot.

[The Gaffer]

Yes, Lief you seem to be keen on taking an historical perspective (i.e. things are terrible now, but they'll get better).

But any study of history would show that little things like invading another country have consequences. Everyone who opposed the war at the time it was being contemplated made this point and has, unfortunately, been proven correct. It's simply disingenuous to blame the Iraqis for their own insurgency.

And the thing is, it didn't need to be even this bad. If they had only had basic competence at a senior political level in the US, there would have been a proper plan for afterwards. Unfortunately, this was not the case.

[The last sane person]

Well, BJ, Iran has fallen to Muslim rule, it fell in 1979. And Pakistan is something I'd be even more worried about, seeing as they already have Nukes and a destablized government.

And second, Saddam did not hold the kurds to anything, they were doing their own thing long before th US came. Now the only thing I'm worried about is Turkey taking their long standing dislike of th Kurds to a new level, an attacking the Kurdish state in Iraq. Then **** will hit the fan in a way that will leave you flabberghasted.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Insurgents that would not exist today if we had not invaded in the first place.

They would probably have cropped up again sometime down the line, though. There have been insurgencies while Saddam was in power, and he obliterated them with incredible savagery.

Saddam annihilated the big Shia uprising in 1991 and also crushed Kurds he thought were a potential threat to him in 1988 and 1987. As with the current Iraq War, the casualty figures from the 1991 uprising vary widely. Some say 30,000 were killed. Others 300,000. When he crushed the Kurds, 50,000 to 100,000 were killed.

Here's a list of the death toll under Saddam's rulership:

Originally Posted by The Conservative Voice

Kennedy characterizing America’s ouster of the murdering butcher Saddam Hussein as “savagery” while ignoring Saddam Hussein’s 20 year regime of genocide, ethnic cleansing, war crimes and torture is nothing short of treason. In those 20 years about 5% of the people of Iraq were killed or mysteriously disappeared never to be seen again after being arrested. Since liberation, hundreds of thousands of the “disappeared” have been found - in Iraq in mass graves.

The war crimes and chemical weapons of Saddam Hussein were the subject of a talk given by U.S. War Crimes Ambassador David J. Scheffer at the National Press Club. Scheffer, on September 18, 2000, when he was working for a Democrat President Bill Clinton. Scheffer, listed 8 specific incidents of war crimes to illustrate what he called “the magnitude” of Saddam Hussein’s “criminal record.” Scheffer said that Hussein’s “criminal record” goes to the “very heart of why his conduct deserves an international response.” The eight points of evidence www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/09/iraq-000918.htm>Scheffer listed were:

1. The Iran-Iraq War in which approximately 5,000 Iranians were killed with chemical weapons between 1983-1988, plus the several thousand Iranian prisoners of war killed by Hussein. (In the “legal” part of the war between these two powerful Muslim nations, 200,000 Iraqis died and over 300,000 Iranians died. They are not counted in Scheffer’s report on war crimes.)
2. The dropping of chemical weapons on the Kurdish city of Halaja in Iraq in March of 1988, that killed over 5,000 civilians. The U.S. government has satellite photos of the carnage. The www.kurd.org/halabja/>Kurds have since reported that five to seven thousand people of 80,000 inhabitants died immediately and a further 20,000 to 30,000 were injured, many severely. Initial studies indicate approximately 52% of current inhabitants were exposed at the time of the chemical warhead attack on Halaja.
3. The Anfal campaigns, also against the Kurds, when Chemical Ali, Hussein’s cousin, was given the orders to slaughter the Kurds. Somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 Kurds were killed. Scheffer called it genocide.
4. The invasion and occupation of Kuwait on August 2, 1990 in which Saddam Hussein’s forces killed more than 1000 Kuwaiti nationals, and an uncounted number from other nations while launching the environmental crime “such as the destruction of oil wells in Kuwait’s oil fields. War crimes also were committed against other nationals in an “effort to coerce their governments into pro-Iraqi policies.”
5. In 1991, when the United Nations failed to approve the actual removal of Saddam Hussein from power, from 30,000 to 60,000 Iraqi civilians, mostly Kurds and Shiites were killed.
6. In the early 1990s, Saddam Hussein drained the southern marshes, which deprived over 100,000 people of their livelihood and their ability to live on land their ancestors had lived on for thousands of years.
7. The ethnic cleansing of Persians and other non-Arabs from Iraq,
8. The killing, torturing and raping of political opponents and their wives and daughters and the disappearance of 300,000 people, the remains of many of whom have been found in mass graves following Iraq’s liberation in 2003.
9. And, according to www.usaid.gov/iraq/pdf/iraq_mass_graves.pdf>a booklet written by the U.S. Agency for International Development approximately 400,000 Iraqi civilians were seized by Saddam Hussein’s various “security” organizations and simply never heard from again

Iraq, a country approximately the size of California, but with only 2/3rd its population, suffered more than a million violent deaths under Saddam Hussein’s regime. That would average out at about 50,000 deaths a year in a population of 25 million before the Americans got involved.

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/...l?storyid=2063

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

You really have to look big picture. For all of Saddam's faults he did serve some major economic, and security, purposes. Purposes which George Bush Sr. understood.

1) He was ruthless, but that's what was needed to hold the Shia, Sunni and Kurds together.

So is your basic problem with US's effort to hold these groups together now that we're not ruthless enough? We might do a better job at maintaining "order" if we were, it's true.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

2) He was basically a secular leader, with very little ties to muslim extremism.

On the contrary, he was listed as one of the number 1 funders of terrorism. He funded groups such as Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and others. He funded groups that had killed Americans before, and he had chemical weapons.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

3) He had no ties to Al Qaeda.

True.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

4) He provided a balance to Iran. Their hatred for one another kept both in check.

While this may be true, the death toll involved in the maintenance of this balance of power was catastrophic.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

As a result of invasion, we've destabilized the whole region and possibly even spurred on more muslim extremism than existed beforehand. If Pakistan and/or Iran falls to muslim rule, we will have been the spark that ignited the fire.

As Sane pointed out, Iran fell to it long before the US invasion of Iraq. The roots of militancy in Pakistan go back a long time as well. Our invasion of Iraq may have aggravated it, but we certainly are not the primary cause.

If, on the other hand, we elect Obama president and then invade Pakistan, I may well agree with you.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

We've gained nothing over the past five or so years, and lost a lot.

When a country is reduced to a bad condition, it takes a lot to get it out, especially when fighting attackers all the way. However, in respect to oil, the key to Iraq's economy we have gotten Iraq to even better a condition than it was originally. We'll just have to see if that sticks or not.

One has to get the country up to its previous condition before one can move it on to a better condition.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

But any study of history would show that little things like invading another country have consequences. Everyone who opposed the war at the time it was being contemplated made this point and has, unfortunately, been proven correct. It's simply disingenuous to blame the Iraqis for their own insurgency.

I agree that this particular insurgency came about because we invaded and the controlling force in the country was taken away. Indirectly, it is our fault. Directly, it is the fault of Iraqi insurgents and foreign militants.

You insist on condemning those indirectly responsible, and though every liberal I have ever talked to about this has blamed the US, only one of them has ever spoken of the insurgents as bearing the primary responsibility. Most ignore the responsibility of the insurgents completely.

The US neither wanted nor meant for an insurgency to exist, though it knew that civil disorder was likely and tried to prevent it. The US is spending a great deal of blood and money to try to fix Iraq and make it free and prosperous, is doing all it can to heal the wounds and repair the damage. You should be spending your time praising the heroic effort that the US is right now engaged in, in Iraq, whether you agree with the original invasion or not!

Unfortunately, only one of the all liberals I've ever debated with has mentioned the primary responsibility of the insurgents themselves, those who are purposefully creating almost all of the havoc we are presently striving to end. Most liberals I've spoken with about Iraq instead blame the US for everything.

This whole situation is just absurd. If the world condemns the US for invading Iraq because of the harm that did Iraqis, it should praise the US for staying there to try to help Iraqis. If you care for Iraqis so much, then why are you trying to get us out of Iraq quickly instead of letting our efforts to save Iraqi lives proceed? It is our efforts that are keeping the country from completely destroying itself.

[brownjenkins]

Too funny.

Do some real research into the stuff you quote Lief.

[BeardofPants]

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If you care for Iraqis so much, then why are you trying to get us out of Iraq quickly instead of letting our efforts to save Iraqi lives proceed? It is our efforts that are keeping the country from completely destroying itself.

I don't think I've ever said that, personally. My position has been that we have a moral imperative to make things right as far as possible. I've also stated my appreciation of the hard work that many of the people in the front line are doing.

(That, of course, is classic right-wing smokescreen tactics. "You are against the war therefore you are against the troops". Cheap patrio-fascism.)

But it's a difficult question for those who objected to the war on moral principle: how can one justify the continuation of an immoral act?
However, given that we are where we are, wouldn't it just make things worse if we did the "morally right" thing and withdrew?

On the one hand, those who committed the crime are best placed to make reparations, yet it may be that, on the other hand, as long as we have a presence in the country, we are part of the problem. Again, it's disingenuous to claim that we do not have primary responsibility for the militancy. We provide its raison d'etre.

Ultimately, the only moral answer, in my view, is something similar to that proposed by the Iraq Study Group. But that involves *shock, horror* talking to Iran and Syria, instead of indulging in mindless tub-thumping, so it's clearly beyond the wit of the current regime.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I don't think I've ever said that, personally. My position has been that we have a moral imperative to make things right as far as possible. I've also stated my appreciation of the hard work that many of the people in the front line are doing.

It has always seemed to me that you strongly oppose our current presence in Iraq. Have I been mistaken?

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

(That, of course, is classic right-wing smokescreen tactics. "You are against the war therefore you are against the troops". Cheap patrio-fascism.)

Even the political leaders, too, to a lesser extent. They've accepted a clobbering from the public and the media, and a loss of political power and influence due to their unpopular position.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

But it's a difficult question for those who objected to the war on moral principle: how can one justify the continuation of an immoral act?

It seems to me that your question oversimplifies the issues. Even if (not that I believe this) invading in the first place was wrong, this does not mean our continued presence in Iraq is also wrong. That would be like saying a man who spills a can of bean soup all over the kitchen floor is doing wrong when he tries to clean the mess up afterward. Our current presence in Iraq is not a "continuation of an immoral act." If the person was in his neighbor's house and left the can of bean soup for his neighbor to clean up, that would be the immoral act. Cleaning up after himself is not an immoral act- leaving the mess where it lies is. Especially if leaving it alone (such as leaving the soup to bleed into a carpet, ruining the carpet) will make the problem a hundred times worse for the neighbor.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

However, given that we are where we are, wouldn't it just make things worse if we did the "morally right" thing and withdrew?

Withdrawing would not be at all "morally right." It would be morally wrong. You can't blend our current presence in Iraq and our initial invasion and say they're the same issue. Our invasion, right or wrong, is over. But if we left, Iraqis would be the first to pay a terrible price. Our withdrawal now would be wrong. Our presence there is right. And one should support the leaders who are trying to keep the war going, not those that are favoring retreat.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

On the one hand, those who committed the crime are best placed to make reparations, yet it may be that, on the other hand, as long as we have a presence in the country, we are part of the problem.

How?

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Again, it's disingenuous to claim that we do not have primary responsibility for the militancy. We provide its raison d'etre.

We are the secondary cause. The people involved are the primary cause. Even if we opened up a possibility for chaos, it was others who deliberately created that chaos, and we are doing all in our power to resist those people. The US should be being praised right now for what it is doing in the present in the liberal community, but instead, many express their concern for the Iraqis they say we've been pulverizing by saying we should pull out immediately.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

We are the secondary cause. The people involved are the primary cause. Even if we opened up a possibility for chaos, it was others who deliberately created that chaos, and we are doing all in our power to resist those people. The US should be being praised right now for what it is doing in the present in the liberal community, but instead, many express their concern for the Iraqis they say we've been pulverizing by saying we should pull out immediately.

If you remove a government, and all the methods it had for enforcing the law, as we did in Iraq. And then do a very slow, and arguably bad, job at rebuilding those structures, you are the primary cause.

If you shoot someone in the foot, is it okay if you then call an ambulance for them?

Our first error was invading in the first place.

Our second error was bad planning for a future Iraq without Saddam.

Our third error was dragging our feet for years before addressing our second error.

Our current error is assuming that a momentary lapse in violence, when we have not addressed the root causes, is going to lead to a positive future in and of itself.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

No, I'm not happy that people are dying...al Qaeda in Iraq is killing them, and we are killing al Qaeda.

Establishing a solid democracy for Iraqis, an ally for the US, and for the world in general. Yes, that is good. It may not be happy, but it is good.

Staggering levels of delusion.

a) Al Quaeda weren't in Iraq until we were there.
b) We have killed thousands of civilians. Bombs do not discriminate civilians from Al Quaeda
c) Many more have been killed indirectly: by the effects of the collapse of civil society, as widely predicted by everyone who had any sense prior to the invasion.

You know, you (in common with the Right in general) write as if you think people like me hate America, or want America to lose, and that is the most disgusting allegation. It implies an utter contempt for debate, and a wanton disregard for human lives.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

a) Al Quaeda weren't in Iraq until we were there.

According to a new pentagon report says....

Captured Iraqi documents have uncovered evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism, including a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist and Islamic terrorist organizations. While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist-operatives monitored closely. Because Saddam's security organizations and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some way, a "de facto" link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam’s use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime.

But that's not the original reason we went there. It is a good reason not to leave though, which would allow Al Qaeda, or Iran, or that other slimebag to take over. Or whatever combination of them.

b) We have killed thousands of civilians. Bombs do not discriminate civilians from Al Quaeda

"We" have killed thousands of civilians. It's fine if you say that starting the war caused Al Qaeda to come to Iraq to fight us, causing the deaths of a lot of innocent people, but saying "We", Americans, have killed thousands of civilians in Iraq...

c) Many more have been killed indirectly: by the effects of the collapse of civil society, as widely predicted by everyone who had any sense prior to the invasion.

OHHHHH. These are the people we killed indirectly. So we directly killed thousands of innocent civilians, on purpose?

It implies an utter contempt for debate,

I've been debating in this thread with people, Gaffer, and I've neither said nor implied that I have contempt for debate.

and a wanton disregard for human lives.

The only human lives I have a disregard for are the terrorists we have killed in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and in several countries of Africa...and all the others in other parts of the world. I truly do not care about their lives.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

According to a new pentagon report says....

Captured Iraqi documents have uncovered evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism, including a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist and Islamic terrorist organizations. While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist-operatives monitored closely. Because Saddam's security organizations and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some way, a "de facto" link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam’s use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime.

Could you post a link to this quote from the Pentagon report? Like Hillary voting for the Iraq War before reading the NIE I'm too lazy to wade through the whole thing.

[Lief Erikson]

It's at the very end of the appendix, on the second to last page of this document.

[The Gaffer]

these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network

Like the WMDs: Is that the best they can come up with? Anyway, we can leave the terrorist links debate aside for now as it seems there's an acknowledgement that this wasn't the reason for the invasion.

Innocent people die when you have a war. History 101. You don't have to intend them to die for them to inconveniently die when your bombs fall on their houes. Yet you seem to persist in the belief that "we" ("Coalition", which includes the UK) did not kill any innocent civilians. That is the delusion that staggers me.

Look out for a documentary called "Iraq by Numbers", by Rageh Omaar. It's on the BBC this week so might be out wordlwide sometime thereafter. One of his "numbers" is that 47% of Iraqi households have had a member die since the invasion.

47%. Think about that. If you scaled that up to the US it would be about 50 million people. Still, collateral damage eh? A regrettable loss of life.

[Lief Erikson]

Almost everyone you're talking about was not killed by the US. They were killed by insurgents that the US is spending many lives and a great deal of money to stop, so that we can rebuild Iraq.

Also, I have not agreed that we invaded Iraq in order to get oil. I think that Saddam's terrorist links are a big part of why we invaded. Now if it was some place like Somalia that was funding terrorism, we'd probably be less likely to attack, because they are a pretty small and very poor country, so they'd be less of a threat to us. Iraq, on the other hand, has a lot of oil resources that can be used to create an environment of fear in the Middle East, if those funds are used to support terrorists. They also could have been used to finance the development of chemical or biological weapons, and there is still dispute as to whether or not they were being used for those purposes.

The report hector brought up shows that Al Qaeda and Saddam were working together on a low-level basis. There wasn't direct coordination. Saddam does seem to have had links with Al Qaeda, though, and seems to have operated with them on a low level basis. Saddam was directly supporting other terrorist groups, though, including Palestinian groups that had killed US citizens before. The links with terror are very serious to me, just as Iran's are, because Iran and Iraq alike have a lot of oil. Iran can, and does, use that to fund terrorist networks.

[hectorberlioz]

Get this: I was talking to this Sudanese student at my college. He's spent most of his life in Sudan. He's no fan of the Iraq war or Bush, certainly.

Anyways, he was telling me that his brother in law in Sudan, who was a christian...became Muslim. Why? Because Muslims are very rich in Sudan, and they give a lot of money to people who convert and who convert others, to Islam. He said it was a fad of sorts, over there (he didn't use "fad" obviously).

Anyhow, his brother in law became very rich by converting others to Islam.

Well, this lasted for about five years. And then his brother in law decided he didnt want to be Muslim anymore. He converted back to christianity. Well, he was imprisoned for that (and the three-story house etc taken back from him). He says normally he'd have been killed, but there is enough of a christian political presence to prevent that.

Strange.

[Lief Erikson]

Not so strange. I've heard a lot of stories like that involving the Coptic Christians in Egypt. Religious freedom is an Enlightenment idea. The only reason it's practiced at all in the Middle East is because the European superpowers in the last two or three centuries went there with superior firepower and economics and lassoed them into change. But it's still not practiced in a number of countries, and it's often rejected on a grassroots level, even in pretty modernized Muslim states.

Religious freedom wasn't a part of Christian beliefs either, for that matter, until the end of the Religious Wars. It started beginning to exist in the 17th century, and it came into force seriously in the 18th, especially when America established the idea in the Constitution. That's one and a half thousand years, from the time of Christ to the Enlightenment, where Christians didn't practice it. The Jews that the Christians sprang from didn't practice religious freedom either, and it was emphatically rejected in the Old Covenant Law.

It's really an extremely new philosophy, though it has been practiced in small spurts here and there at various points in history before this. Constantine the First established it in the Roman Empire briefly.

I'll respond to your post in more detail in the Theology Thread. I have more thoughts on this that I want to relate, but I don't want to throw us strongly off-topic here.

I agree with you about it being very peculiar and unfortunate that they treat religion so lightly that they'll throw it around for money. That is similar to stories I've heard from Egypt, where families can't get jobs because they're Christian, though I hadn't heard of actual bribes. I've certainly heard of a lot of pressure on Christians in those places, though. What you're saying sounds quite similar. And it is horrible.