Why Was the 'Mayor' of Baghdad Arrested by American Forces?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter N_Quire
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the arrest of Mohammed Mohsen al-Zubaidi, who declared himself the "Mayor" of Baghdad following the American invasion. Participants explore the implications of his self-appointment, the legitimacy of authority in post-invasion Iraq, and the perceived hypocrisy in foreign intervention.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the legitimacy of al-Zubaidi's self-appointment as mayor, arguing that he was not democratically elected.
  • Others suggest that the difference between the American invasion and al-Zubaidi's actions lies in the nature of authority, with some viewing al-Zubaidi as a local attempting to restore order.
  • A participant expresses skepticism about the idea that al-Zubaidi could be seen as a dictator, arguing that the U.S. action was intended to establish democracy.
  • There is a suggestion that al-Zubaidi's claim to authority was undermined by his lack of official recognition and the perception of him as a con man.
  • Some participants highlight the hypocrisy in foreign interventions, questioning why the U.S. actions are viewed differently than those of other nations attempting to influence Iraq's political structure.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the legitimacy of al-Zubaidi's self-appointment and the implications of foreign intervention, indicating that multiple competing perspectives remain without consensus.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference the lack of democratic processes in al-Zubaidi's appointment and the chaotic political environment in post-invasion Iraq, but do not resolve the implications of these factors.

N_Quire
"Mayor" of Baghdad arrested

Mohammed Mohsen al-Zubaidi makes use of the new-found spirit of freedom and democracy in Iraq and sets himself up, with some support, as mayor of Baghdad. The Americans don't like the idea and arrest him.

What's the big difference between invading a country and setting yourself up as mayor of a city? Please explain why the former is right and the latter wrong.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
well i don't rightly agree with such things but best i can tell the logic is that the former was done by Americans and the latter was not. much like the arguments that it is wrong for outsiders such as Syria to try to effect political structure of Iraq, when America is doing just that. it seems hypocrisy is the latest fad.
 
He wasn't democratically elected, so why should he be Mayor. It's the right decision, and an obvious one.
 
Assuming that al-Zubaidi has been a Baghdad resident, difference #1 is that al-Zubaida is a local, not an outsider. Difference #2 is that an invader takes away the order that was present. in al-Zubaidi's case, there was no order, and he was trying to help create it, apparently.
And you did say that he had some support. How much, I do not know.
 
Originally posted by Mulder
He wasn't democratically elected, so why should he be Mayor. It's the right decision, and an obvious one.
It boggles my mind how people can't see something so obvious.

N_Qure, this guy was just looking to be another dictator. Thats how dictatorships work - use a power vacuum to sieze control. What we did is the exact OPPOSITE. We deposed a dictator and will set up a democracy.
 
Yeah, America will choose a warlord to run Iraq, they don't get to choose themselves!
 
The guy was just some schmuck who set himself up in an office near some American troops, and claimed they had appointed him and were there protecting him. The GIs asked him to stop a few days ago, but apparently he didn't listen. It's like the difference between say the Vatican police stopping you in Rome, and a con man claiming to be the cops shaking you down.
 
LOl, as self appointed Mayor, did he also charge tax? fees? etc?
 
Originally posted by damgo
The guy was just some schmuck who set himself up in an office near some American troops, and claimed they had appointed him and were there protecting him. The GIs asked him to stop a few days ago, but apparently he didn't listen. It's like the difference between say the Vatican police stopping you in Rome, and a con man claiming to be the cops shaking you down.
*sheepish grin* ...can't blame a guy for tryin...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 91 ·
4
Replies
91
Views
9K
  • · Replies 1K ·
34
Replies
1K
Views
99K