Thanks for your thoughts rezdawg, and I look forward to hearing what your parents think about the situation. I think the key to making this situation a success is understanding the context and how the people in Iraq and the region think, and responding appropriately for that context. So I find it very interesting to hear the opinions of people who have connections to the area.
Who I like doesn't really matter. If, however, our administration is going to choose very questionable individuals for very important jobs(Hello John Ashcroft) then I think we're going to run into some problems down the road. Hooray for our troops. I could care less about the Iraqi people.
Okay, after a 30 minute session of with my dad explaining the situation to me, I tried paying attention the best I could. It was tough because Wagner was trying to close out the 9th and the Rockets were pissing me off. Anyways, here is my best paraphrasing job. The Iraqi shiites are not comfortable with the US right now. Because the US backed Saddam back in the day and therefore gave power to the sunni's, the shiites still have some resentment. Saddam's power caused them much distress. With Saddam losing power, the sunni's, in essence, lose power too. The majority of southern Iraq is shiite. Thus, the shiites will be making a strong push to eventually take over the country. With this, relations with Iran (which is dominantly shiite) will vastly improve. That will mean that 2 countries in the middle east will be predominantly shiite. Naturally, they will become friends and allies.
I can't remember the last time I laughed as hard as when I saw those dudes dragging Saddam's head around the streets with people riding it. Did I see that right? People were surfing SoDamn Insane's head... lol.
Good Lord, how f***ing naive can people be? The U.S. Army says to the "embedded" reporter, "Point your camera at that," and they do. The media has been spoonfed from the beginning. Of course the happy Iraqis are going to come out and show themselves. You can bet there are plenty of Iraqis that the media can't/won't show in this episode of "Wag the Dog" (Clinton getting hummers? bomb Serbia! Noriega refuses to continue slobbing GHWB's knob? invade Panama!) Pathetic that we need to beat up on a weak country pretending to be liberators, just to make our country feel good about itself. That'll show'em who's boss. Saudi Arabian individuals and some Saudi Arabian money had more to do with 9/11 than did Iraq. But I guess they'll be cowed, too, right? Time to install Iraq's next despot. The Iraqis'll be showing him the door before too long, just like Iran did the Shah---but not before American companies rake in big bucks from Iraqi oil. Better plant those chemical and nuclear stockpiles quickly, boys. Better release a little more sarin into the air---not enough to hurt any of our boys; just enough for monitors to pick it up. We don't want the President to look like a conquerer. As long as the U.S. and Israel are so closely allied, the situation in the Middle East will be an unbelievable mess. I can only selfishly pray that when Muslim terrorists bring nuclear vengeance to our shores, that Houston will be spared.
At least I'm not pretending to care about people that America only pays attention to about once every 12 years.
If there was a anti-american march right now in Baghdad the media would be all over that, well maybe not Fox, but everyone else would. Everything is not one big conspiracy like you're making it out to be.
Actually, most of the camera work that you see on TV is still from Arab news agencies that Iraq had let stay. The Saddam statue being knocked down was an "Abu Dhabi exclusive" By the way, not everything the U.S. does is evil. Sure, the U.S. make some mistakes, but most of the time, the U.S. does the right thing. Its the conspiracy nuts like you that think that the U.S. is evil and tries to control everything all the time that most normal people just laugh at. Hmmm...what's next, are you going to call me a "sheep" or something to that affect just because I disagree with you. I've seen that several time on this board for people that generally believe the U.S. tries to do the right thing most of the time. I'm sure some of the coverage is sugar coated to appeal to the U.S. viewers, but that doesn't mean that you have to take it to the exact opposite side of the spectrum. The real truth about how Iraq will turn out and what our true motives really are is probably somewhere smack dab in the middle of the arguments that are generally presented on this board. Just like the arguments made before the war began. One side said that America would roll through to victory and win with mass uprisings and surrenders in a couple of days....the other side said that their would be fierce resistance and that the U.S. would be bogged down for years losing thousands in and around Baghdad. The truth was pretty much in the middle. There weren't mass surrenders, but there were some sizeable ones. There wasn't huge amounts of troops lost to fierce Iraqi resistance, but there was some resistance. We didn't roll over the country in a matter of days, but a matter of weeks, and maybe a month or two before everything is really under control. Right in the middle. This applies to the arguments about what this war was really about and how the Iraqis really feel about it. One side said they would be showering us with flowers, the other said they would rise up against us. The truth is in the middle. Most are glad Saddam is gone, some party in the streets, most probably are at least partially annoyed and very few are taking up arms against us. Oil...is this war about oil...one side would say no, the other yes. The war is probably about oil some, but its not the only reason for the war like some would say. If we really wanted cheap oil, we would have just let Saddam sell it to us cheap, it would have cost us a lot less in terms of money and lives. Will be benefit from the oil anyways, sure, of course we will, but if you believe its the only reason, your probably mistaken. Chem weapons...this war is about chem weapons too...is it only about chem weapons...no, but its ONE of the reasons. And if you believe that there is honestly no chemical weapons in Iraq and the U.S. is going to fake finding them, I think that's taking conspiracy theories right past reality...MOST countries before the war believed there were chemical weapons somewhere in Iraq, whether the believed in war or not...anyways, I'm going to stop my rant and wait for scathing replies calling me naive and a sheep because I believe that my country tends to try to do the right thing.
Trader_Jorge: The fact that you think there are only two sides to every issue, right and wrong, good and evil (much like Bush), with a winner and a loser is one of the big reasons we can never have a decent debate. SuperMac: That was a good post. My position (and if I understand it right MacBeth's and others') is not represented in your post though. I have never been on either of the sides you mentioned with regard to a long or a short war (though I do predict a protracted presence in Iraq), I have never presumed to know what was in the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people and I have never speculated as to the role oil played in this war. My objections to this war have been: - Lack of world support and fractured alliances due to clumsy and even arrogant diplomacy - Fear that (even perceived) US imperialism will serve to strengthen the resolve of those people in the world who hate the US much more than it will frighten them, resulting in more 9/11 type tragedies - A general opposition to a US role as world police officer, which if carried out consistently would have us at war with many, many nations over many, many decades - A rabid opposition to the pre-emptive or preventative strike doctrine and the chilling slippery slope it engenders - What I sincerely perceive to be cynicism with regard to the arguments for the war, which I continue to believe was in large part politically motivated None of the above things have changed for me as a result of the toppling of Saddam (or his statues) or the liberation of the Iraqis, though I am glad he seems to be gone and I am glad they are at the very least more free than they were. I still don't believe though that it was the right way to go about it. A happy result does not always justify the means for me, especially when it might have lingering bad effects. If I have a friend whose husband beats her and you shoot him in the head to stop him from beating her, I will be glad she's free of him but I will not thank you for shooting him in the head. If you not only go unpunished for shooting him in the head but are cheered for it, I can only expect further vigilantism to follow, both from you and others. And as happy I am that he's no longer on this earth, a world of "moral" murderers is not a world I want to live in. I sincerely hope that, when the US has completed its lesson to the world through this show of force, the Iraqis will be allowed to control their own destinies. That's about all I have to say about this today.
Originally posted by Batman Jones .... My objections to this war have been: - Lack of world support and fractured alliances due to clumsy and even arrogant diplomacy I think much of the damage possibly could have been avoided with better US diplomacy, but I think: 1) Much of the damage was intentional by the French gov. They saw the opportunity to attempt to establish themselves as a world leader 2) They took advantange of an undercurrent of anti-Americanism - Fear that (even perceived) US imperialism will serve to strengthen the resolve of those people in the world who hate the US much more than it will frighten them, resulting in more 9/11 type tragedies To some extent that may still be true (much to TJ's chagrin, but you will never be able to prove the association with this war). My belief is that if the post-war is handled properly by the US, i.e., we manage humanitarian aid OK, help install a democratic regime, and keep our hands off the Iraqis' oil, this war will advance our security overall, not decrease it. Questions re. our motives will have answers, and many people will change their mind re. our actions in general. Furthermore, the influence of a democratic gov in the proximity of the non-democratic countries (that teach hatred of America as a scapegoat) may have long-term beneficial effects. - A general opposition to a US role as world police officer, which if carried out consistently would have us at war with many, many nations over many, many decades If the threat is direct to the US, which many of our leaders 'in the know' agreed w/ re. Iraq, then calling it a 'police action' is very inaccurate. - A rabid opposition to the pre-emptive or preventative strike doctrine and the chilling slippery slope it engenders The 'slippery slope' issue is tough, but maybe something we will just have to accept and manage. Some professors from China argued for the war, claiming that countrys' borders should not be an issue re. humantitarian causes. At this point, no one can convince me that the Iraqis were not horribly oppressed by this regime. If all other mechanisms to overthrow a despot (who tortures and murders his own people) fail, what action would you suggest? Furthermore, times change. Hypothetically, say a terrorist organization gets it's hands on WMD. These WMD must be state-sponsored, but from where? Say there are 4 rogue nations that could have provided them, what do you do before the next one is used and kills thousands or tens of thousands more? Who do you hold accountable for the first attack? I'm not saying that we can run around willy-nilly hitting every potential threat, but this new reality will change our approach. - What I sincerely perceive to be cynicism with regard to the arguments for the war, which I continue to believe was in large part politically motivated Again, as I've asked before, why did democratic leaders, some no longer in office (Clinton's crew), argue for the war, claiming that Iraq was q direct threat to the US? None of the above things have changed for me as a result of the toppling of Saddam (or his statues) or the liberation of the Iraqis, though I am glad he seems to be gone and I am glad they are at the very least more free than they were. If humanitarian issues were important to you, the reaction to the end of saddam should have answered some serious questions. I still don't believe though that it was the right way to go about it. What was your solution? I don't think there was another viable option than force. A happy result does not always justify the means for me, especially when it might have lingering bad effects. The status-quo would have had bad lingering effects for many many Iraqis, but since saddam's horrible mistreatement of the Iraqis was not portested against for the last 30 years, people's perspectives are screwed-up. If those same anti-war protestors had protested saddam for all of these years, the war would have been accepted with open arms. If I have a friend whose husband beats her and you shoot him in the head to stop him from beating her, I will be glad she's free of him but I will not thank you for shooting him in the head. If you not only go unpunished for shooting him in the head but are cheered for it, I can only expect further vigilantism to follow, both from you and others. And as happy I am that he's no longer on this earth, a world of "moral" murderers is not a world I want to live in. It's more like she keeps having children and he kills every other one. There are no police available, only 'me' with a big stick. The neighbors don't want me to venture into their home, 'because its his home and you have no right to got there', furthermore, they claim, I have less right to go there because he is of a different religion and ethinicity than me. Finally, he knows I will have to kick the door in so he puts one child against the door so I won't, but I know he ultimately will kill 10 more children (they must be Catholic ) The irony is that it seems the US, after many examples of supporting dictators over the decades, may have finally recognized the self-serving benefit of democracies in other countries. We may also now be more inclined (Bosnia and Iraq...in part) to take serious action based on humanitarian reasons. (Despots will not be sleeping so well anymore) Yet the far left has taken a strong stance against these causes that appear to be more consistent with leftist ideals? Instead, it prefers to ascribe only the most negative goals to the US action. Skepticism and cynicism serve an important function, but one can get lost in them when you go down that road. Don't worry, thoug, I'm not labeling you a 'ROXTXIA' ( ); just making a general observation.
Seems to me that we have had to pay attention to Iraq just about every year the last 12 years. And I saw on CNN how upset the UN members looked as the Iraqis cheered on the street and smacked Saddam's statue head. The UN doesn't have the Iraqi's interest at heart either. The US wants a democratic Iraq to succed. Does the UN really want that?
What this does is show the rest of the world that we are not just about words. I think Saddam underestimated the US resolve, and figured we would continue to lob missiles. Wrong ! The left has been saying that we would face increased terrorism, we have fractured our alliances, we would be bogged down in an unjust war, the war is about oil, the Iraqi people don't want us there. Bah !! Terrorism will diminish, as we continue to hunt them down all over the world. Alliances are never in total agreement. Witness, Russia, Germany and France meeting this weekend to discuss how they can get in on the rebuilding of Iraq. Who will they have to go through to participate, oh yeah...US !!! Bogged down, hardly, this is the fastest any military has moved in the history of the world. War about oil, well, it is certainly a factor, but if was about Oil we would have continued in '91 and just kept the oil then. We didn't then and we won't now. The Iraqi people clearly are happy we are there, now the sooner we can get a government established and just set up a military base in Iraq, the better. Let them rule themselves, and let our military protect them, much like Eastern Europe and Germany. It is a good day, and it is good to see the USA stand up for the right reasons, while the cockroaches cower in the corner. DD
