Iraq - not ALL is bad

[Nishin]

America has sacrificed greatly to bring Iraq freedom and to try to bring stability to an unstable region, but Iraq hasn't grasped what a great gift we have given them.

This comment reminds me of the bullshit I hear from Europeans trying to justify colonialism, evangelism and imperialism in Africa and other parts of the world... with the results we know of...

Such condescension ...

 

[ryankeith]

I think it's time the Iraqis stop commenting on avatars and start building their own government (officially back on topic).

America has sacrificed greatly to bring Iraq freedom and to try to bring stability to an unstable region, but Iraq hasn't grasped what a great gift we have given them.

That said, good things have been accomplished in Iraq. A murderous dictator is gone, and there have been reports that Iraq's economy is "booming."

Iraqi's did not ask us to invade them and free them from a tyranical dictator.

We invaded Iraq, which at the time was a stable country, and we created the instability.

What gift have we given them? More Death?

Not everyone in the world wants what we have in the US. They have different belief systems, they have traditions that span centuries that do not conform to an "American" life style we are so desperatley trying to "gift" to them.

Sometimes we should leave people the hell alone.

 

[unclaimedblessing]

Kuhlindar, if I were an Iraqi and my family and friends were killed or maimed by US bombs or bullets, the US could build me a castle and I'd still never forgive them.
GWB is delusional with this "Liberator" BS. The last time that liberators were cheered was WW11 Europe. A different time, a different place and we liberated countries from foreign (Nazi) invaders and cruel occupation.
How do we liberate a people from themselves?.
We are simply invaders, and the average Iraqi might be pleased that Saddam was deposed, but any patriot would want foreign invaders out of their country.

 

[gaygoth]

We have given them the gift of freedom, but they have not grasped it's meaning.

I do not agree with the idea of going to war for nation-building. It was wrong to do in Vietnam, and it was the wrong thing to do here, for the very reason that I just said, the Iraqis do not yet see what a great political system a democracy is.

We went to war because our national intelligence (oxymoron?) as well as foreign intelligence (again, oxymoron?) said that he had amassed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. We also went in to remove Saddam from power because of his constant threats on the U.S., his financing of terrorism such as suicide bombers in Palestine, and his repeated defiance fo U.N. resolutions. The third objective, and this is where it gets tricky, was to put in place a government that would be friendly to the U.S. and would be an ally in the war on terror. Novel idea, but a big mistake.

The stockpiles were never found, though we did find some rather significant quantities of weapons, something that was, to my knowledge, never reported by the criminal-liberal media. Saddam Hussein was removed from power and was hanged for his crimes. And the world is better off for it.

However, we failed to seal off the border and terrorists are streaming in more and more, day after day. The stability we had sought in forming a western-style democracy has yet to come. And so, the war continues. I can only hope that the troop "surge" will be used to seal up the borders (though we can't even do that in our own country, so eek) and to fully train the Iraqi military so they can fight each other and we can get the Hell out.

Now that we're in Iraq, we have to win in Iraq. Failure there will result in more and more terrorist attacks here on our own soil and in our interests abroad from a network of thugs who have been emboldened by an American defeat in a Middle-East nation.

 

[unclaimedblessing]

As I recall we went into Iraq because GWB said they had WMDs and were "in bed" with al Qaeda.
UN inspectors were unable to find WMDs and neither did we.
We found out Saddam had as much or more to fear from al Qaeda than we did.
Therefore those goals were accomplished.
GWB had a personal vendetta against Saddam. Saddam was executed, his sons and most keyman were killed too. Consequently GWBs goals were accomplished too.
If we met our goals, we won.
What constitutes winning? Many Iraqis have fled their country, many foreign insurgents are moving in so we are not even fighting the same people we went there to fight. The country is on the brink of a factional civil war.
Yes Pollyanna, the situation is rosey.

 

[andysayshi]

And there are quite a few liberals on Fox News. Alan Combs, Greta Van Susteren, Shepard Smith, etc.

 

[OtterJoq]

And there are quite a few liberals on Fox News. Alan Combs, Greta Van Susteren, Shepard Smith, etc.

I haven't laughed this hard in weeks!

Thanks for the day-brightener, gg.

 

[naked gent]

Can't wait for us to leave? Not sure where your geting your information, but the government of Iraq is in absolutely no hurry to see us leave. They fear that day for exactly the reason you state. The possiblility of real ethnic "cleansing".

You're usually so fond of paying attention to what people say.....Maliki says give us the weapons and you can leave. Do you not consider the source legitimate?

The terrorist and extremest of every stripe. It's a silly hypothetical, so my answer can be as I am, not if I had been born there as a poor Shia. It can't be answered.

The obtuse have a catagory of errors all their own and while they lack imagination they do have a remarkable ability to project themselves and their values onto others with the predictable results.

The irony to me is how liberals used to be the "Pay any price. Bear any burden." in order to secure the success of liberty. You guys were the young idealist out to make the world a better place. Now you've all become "Archie Bunker" isolationist, not caring at all how and where the darker people of the world kill each other. "We all know they always have and always will anyway, right? They aren't good enough for our kind of government."

Better start taking those JFK icons off the walls of liberal hang-outs, he would wince in shame at you guys...

Here I'll agree with you. The Kennedy 'pay any price' probably went down with Vietnam but it was cheered by liberals while Nixon's real politic and detante were excoriated by conservatives. Carter's 'human rights' policy was ridiculed by conservatives while Reagan's tough talk and promotion of freedom was fought by liberals.

Bush is more like the democratic Kennedy with a touch of Carter plus the tough talk of Reagan but nothing like republican Nixon ot Ford for that matter. Is it really just becoming whatever you're for I'm against?

To drift back on topic I wonder what those of you who believe the media avoids the good news from Iraq would have reacted if on 9-12-01 papers in Dallas, Chicago or L.A. ran stories saying that less than 1% of the country was attacked and things are really pretty good in the rest of the country. New businesses are opening every day, and next week there's a sale at Macy's.

 

[MassRuss]

I'm usually the voice of "doom and gloom" from the Right on Iraq, but it is just possible that the Iraqi's watch and follow American politics enough that they are starting to get the clue that this may be their final chance of pulling a respectable country out of this. One of my hopes is that when the American people and the Democrat Congress finally pull the plug, patriotic Iraqis will fight like hell to keep it from all going down the drain. It is important to keep in mind all the great things they have accomplished since the fall of Saddam. They are still the ONLY arab country to actually hold multi party, multi ethnic, multi religious free elections multiple times and hammer together the beginnings of a democracy.

Also, the country who defies the UN when it comes to gays being targeted by militias, who are really in charge of the so-called "democracy" in Iraq.
There was always slogans about the "light" at the end of the tunnel. Can't see the light in the tunnel which is Iraq, too much smoke fromt the suicide bombers blowing up.

 

[Andreus]

This thread isn't about the Bush administration.

this thread is about the iraq war. it is hardly posible to separate the comander of the armed forces from a discussion on how well things are going in a nation we are at war with.

get real

 

[chance1]

Iraqi's did not ask us to invade them and free them from a tyranical dictator.

We invaded Iraq, which at the time was a stable country, and we created the instability.

What gift have we given them? More Death?

Not everyone in the world wants what we have in the US. They have different belief systems, they have traditions that span centuries that do not conform to an "American" life style we are so desperatley trying to "gift" to them.

Sometimes we should leave people the hell alone.

So the Iraqis would be better off with Saddam still in charge?

Please put that on the record

 

[chance1]

I haven't laughed this hard in weeks!

Thanks for the day-brightener, gg.

what's so funny

he didn't say they were effective liberals

 

[Andreus]

A funny thing about democracy: It can only exist by the consensus of the governed. You just can't cram it down people's throats.

Freedom isn't freedom if it's been forced upon you from some outside power against your will. It isn't the Iraqis who fail to understand the nature of freedom. It's GWB.

this is one of the most perceptive posts that i ahve read in a long time

it summs up a basic point that the republicans and their sympathisers and apologists will never come to terms with

it is the nature and the hubris of the bush administration

thanks for your eloquence

 

[Kulindahr]

this thread is about the iraq war. it is hardly posible to separate the comander of the armed forces from a discussion on how well things are going in a nation we are at war with.

get real

1. This thread is not about the Iraq ware -- go read the first post again, please.

2. Going off into tirades about Bush have nothing to do with the topic, except as a way to avoid dealing with it.

 

[Andreus]

1. This thread is not about the Iraq ware -- go read the first post again, please.

2. Going off into tirades about Bush have nothing to do with the topic, except as a way to avoid dealing with it.

thanks for your opinion on that

i will continue to adress the topic as i see fit

 

[Andreus]

Sure, I think it's quite possibly true.

there would have been less of them dead thats for sure

you remember that?

bush said he was liberating iraq from a brutal dictator who killed his people

bush has killed twice as many of them in one quarter of the time

i guess the liberating part was in that he meant to free their souls from a mortal existence

 

[Kulindahr]

A funny thing about democracy: It can only exist by the consensus of the governed. You just can't cram it down people's throats.

It can also only exist when people comprehend individual human rights as more than something scribbled on a piece of paper. Where that understanding has not arisen, democracy will be empty forms utilized in the interests of selfishness, and where that understanding fades, the same will be true.

Freedom isn't freedom if it's been forced upon you from some outside power against your will. It isn't the Iraqis who fail to understand the nature of freedom. It's GWB.

Freedom "imposed" from the outside is like what cows around here do if the fence falls down -- they stay inside the boundaries trained into them.

All GWB understands about freedom is what he learned on the Texas ranch.

 

[naked gent]

He's more of an optimist than I am.

A low hurdle wouldn't you say.

I'll just take the "here I agree with you." Shows good judgment on your part. The rest of the statement is just a smoke screen to mask your comming to your senses.

Not at all. The thing thats different about the Bush foreign policy.....different from everything that came before it (Kennedy too) is the idea of pre-emption. That confrontational type of policy has been the far rights dream since the 50's. Its why they hated Nixon and his cursed Detente. You don't talk to evil you attack it.

Even the sainted Reagan while he used confrontation it was a tool to bring 'evil' to the table and once there he struck a deal with those godless commies.

The right finally got its chance to use the type of foreign policy it has always advocated in Iraq and its been a disaster. However much you believe in it you must realize that after having a taste of it your country won't be so willing to try again.

Pre-emption is dead. The right had their chance and blew it.

The evidence for that is the opposition the Bush (or should I say Cheney) policy of not talking to countries they don't like has been getting. I'm not saying he'll change but you can bet that whoever comes after him will return to the more traditional, less confrontational policy of the past.

Well, I am a reactionary. I pretty much just read the New York Times, or talk to a liberal and whatever they think is a "good idea", I'm pretty sure will destroy Western Civilization as we know it.

Well at least as you know it anyway.

 

[Kulindahr]

Not only do I pay attention well. I also have a fair understanding of English, and I see no where in that statement a "can't wait for you to leave." sentiment. Where are you getting that from? Our plan is, and has always been, to leave when Iraq can defend itself. The Prime Minister is simply reflecting that in that statement. He's more of an optimist than I am.

I took him to be eyeing Congress with the worry that the Democrats are going to cut Iraq off and leave them in the lurch. Murtha would surely love to make that happen. But while Bush is still there, Maliki, in my view, is going to make the effort to get his hands on everything he can just in case the new power in Washington makes the U.S. once more untrustworthy.

If I was in Maliki's position, I'd be looking at the good things are getting done and lobbying for any increased aid to pass on to the people that could possibly be dredged up, even to household furnishings rejected by factories as damaged and unsalable.

 

[ryankeith]

So the Iraqis would be better off with Saddam still in charge?

Please put that on the record

Chance, life is not all black and white or good guys, bad guys. You like to play the game that way and it doesn't work. Real life is too complicated for that.

Were they better off with him in power? I don't know...they had running water and electricity...they had homes to go to at night. They certainly didn't have an "American" way of life thats for sure, but did they want an American way of life? They also weren't getting their lives completley turned upside down and getting killed everyday. Thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed so far...far more than what Saddam did through his entire dictatorship. So I can't answer that.

You can't force a "gift" down someones throat, especially when they didn't ask for it. Put that on record.

My 2 cents
nothing personal.