1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Has anyone's opinion of post war operations changed?

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by FranchiseBlade, May 3, 2004.

Tags:
  1. FranchiseBlade

    FranchiseBlade Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    51,807
    Likes Received:
    20,465
    I used to think that it was our duty to stay in Iraq and help them get started again. We owed it to them to help build the new government, and an infrastructure that would make it stable. I thought that this would help the Iraqis with a new democracy. I never wanted this war, but once it happened I felt staying there was the only moral thing to do.

    Now I'm not so sure. The report on torture, the fact that it's more important to turn the country over on June 30th than it is to make the country stable, the fact that Chalabi and his cronies play such a predominant part on the Iraqi governing council is really starting to bother me.

    I still agree with the principle that we should stay over there, but it feels like our leadership isn't up to the task. Maybe they should step down, and allow the UN to take over the whole operation. I still believe that most of our troops aren't involved in the torture of prisoners, but the fact that it has been systemic, and approved from the top down, is very disheartening, and does a great discredit to our soldiers who are there doing their duty. Those soldiers have basically been sold out, and their reputations tarnished. Our whole nation has been tarnished by this. We are supposed to be champions of law and order, of justice, of freedom, of democracy. In Iraq little of that is being carried out. Why replace Saddam, if we are just going to start the torturing of Iraqis ourselves?

    Can the Iraqi people even trust us now enough to make a U.S. friendly democracy possible? The sad thing is if we had to choose for Iraq to either be one or the other, U.S. friendly, or a democracy, then I have no doubt that Democracy will be the looser. Al Sustani, the Shiite cleric had hasked to have direct elections months ago. Perhaps we should have worked harder on that. We could have avoided a lot of problems including the whole Al Sadr mess.

    It's hard for anyone to have an occupying army in their country and believe that the army will turn things over. But when that army has been found to be torturing Iraqis, it will be nearly impossible. Add to that the fact that rather than choose a President who was in Iraq and suffered under Saddam to head the governing council, the U.S. places a man who hadn't been in the country for decades, and has been shown to be dishonest, but still a friend to the U.S. It would be nearly impossible for Iraqis to think with that kind of record that the U.S. wasn't acting solely out of their own intrest with little to no concern for the Iraqis.

    Sadly the damage that has been done to our country's name, and our soldier's good name, may not be able to be repaired. Perhaps it's time for the U.S. to find the most expedient way of turning the whole operation over to the U.N. Because even if we end up with new leadership after the 2004 elections, I'm not sure we can, or are even prepared to make things right in Iraq.
     
    #1 FranchiseBlade, May 3, 2004
  2. HAYJON02

    HAYJON02 Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    4,777
    Likes Received:
    278
    At first I was very on the fence because there was so much I didn't know, but in the back of my head it seemed kind of shady.

    Now, definitely against it in the form it happened in. Freedom's all well and good but you can't circumvent your own rules. It's an ends and means kind of deal. Freedom and integrity have to go hand in hand. If what we're doing is truely noble, then why is there so much debate about it? That in itself says something.
     
    #2 HAYJON02, May 3, 2004
  3. rimrocker

    rimrocker Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 1999
    Messages:
    23,122
    Likes Received:
    10,158
    I thought a lot about this over the last week or so... Since this thing started, I was clinging to the hope that if we kept at it somehow things would get better and we could at least leave Iraq as good as we found it. Now I'm at the point where I think I was an idiot to think that. What really brought it home (the straw on the camel's back) is the fact that only a small portion of the funds allocated for fixing Iraq have been spent... the funds have been siphoned off to provide for security and that will be the case from now until we leave. We can't get anything done because of the security situation and because we can't get anything done, the security situation worsens. There is no end to the downward spiral. No matter how many soldiers and tanks and cool airplanes that shoot really big guns we have, we cannot govern without the consent of those to be governed. Sure, we can hold power and do whatever we want militarily, but we will never approach the vision put forth by the "planners" of this war.

    Can anyone on the right who supports this war and the Bush Administration provide an even partially plausible way we can accomplish the "mission?" It's a pipe dream, or, more cynically and probably more realistically, it's a con job. The great quote from Watergate applies: These guys aren't very smart and things got out of hand. Boy, did it ever.

    I'm increasingly pessimistic (and that's saying something!) about this and am at the point where I think our only course is to move out and let what may happen happen. It pains me to say so because I love this country and want to see it succeed, especially in the realm of ideas... this hurts because a major blow has been dealt to our ability to spread the ideas of democracy, ironically, under the banner of spreading democracy. It also hurts because the Iraqi people deserve better. We went into this largely on hope... hoping that we would transform the ME, hoping that this would send a message to the terrorists. I suggest we withdraw on the same principle and hope that within the next 20 years or so things settle out in Iraq so that there is a government in place that does not sponsor terror and is not rabidly anti-American, hope we have gimlet-eyed and capable leaders who can recapture the values of the United States and understand the national interest does not necessarily correspond to the corporate interest, hope that same leaders are educated enough and sure enough of themselves and what this country stands for that they don't fall prey to an idealogical cabal, hope that we rebuild our alliances, and hope that we demonstrate to the world and the ME especially this administration was an abberation. I know it's a long shot, but I think we have a better chance of finding our way to the end of that road then the one we're on now.
     
    #3 rimrocker, May 3, 2004
  4. Woofer

    Woofer Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2000
    Messages:
    3,995
    Likes Received:
    1
    A separate peace and three separate countries for Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis. Of course, there's no oil in the Sunni part...
     
    #4 Woofer, May 3, 2004
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)

Share This Page