SJO, how do you feel about the fact that a majority of Iraqi's interviewed actually want Saddam out, and have no problems with our being there?
(granted, these are the articles i've read where an actual Iraqi was interviewed, if you have different sources, please point them out)
I haven't met anyone who doesn't want him out. The guy's a horrible specimen of humanity. Since he's such a horrible, evil, nasty, brutal, vicious, dishonest, conniving, psychpathic loose cannon, it truly makes me wonder why the U.S. supported him for so many years (1978-1990), during 3 successive administrations, until Gulf War 1, when he overstepped his limit by marching into Kuwait. The US was his ally when he was gassing Iranian positions during the Iran/Iraq war with mustard gas, using US intelligence to do so. I would hazard a guess that if he hadn't have done that, there would still be a cozy relationship between Saddam and the US, with all the WMD he had in 1990, as well as a military 3 times its current strength.
Ari Fleischer gave the show away the other day during a White House briefing: When asked if the U.S. would attack Iraq if Saddam went into exile, he blustered a bit and then acknowledged in the affirmative. Regime change is not the real reason, and WMD is still an unknown. I bet the Iraqi people would like democracy, but I bet that the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, the Yemenis, the Iranians, etc etc etc etc etc etc would love a spot of democracy also. Setting up democracy in Iraq isn't going to be pretty...or easy...but we don't do stuff like this do we, according to Bush in his inauguration address...nation building is not on the agenda.
Do Iraqis really want democracy? They haven't ever lived in a democracy. Iraqi society may not even allow a western style democracy. if it doesn't, will it be forced upon them? After the power vacuum following Saddam's exit, then what? Sunni muslims battling it out with Shiites? Then throw the liberated Kurdish people into the fray...with American troops probably getting caught in the crossfire as they try to police the whole thing. Just look at Afghanistan, it's a ghastly mess. Kabul is the only area controlled by Karzai, and after all the promises of rebuilding and reform,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2759789.stm they have nothing to show for it except al'qaida is weakened (Afghanistan is just one of 60 nations with al'qaida personnel btw), women are going to school in the capital and the rest of the country is controlled by war lords and opium harvests are at record levels.
I'm sure the Iraqis want Saddam out. He's a tyrant. But if we really wanted him out of there because he's such a menace to the rest of the world, we could have done it during Gulf War 1, saving ourselves a huge problem, as well as trashing the outpouring of good will that the world showed towards America post 9-11. Now most of the world is pissed at us, and the feelings and passions in the Arab world look potentially very dangerous already. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/...ry/2875263.stm If we had had the will during the last 12 years since the end of Gulf War 1, the worlds most powerful military could have easily "decapitated" Saddam's regime with a few well placed JDAMs any time, given just a bit of good intelligence. To launch an all out war on the whole country to achieve this end, in the meantime flattening Iraq's cultural centers, museums, Baghdad's University and a whole slew of other non military targets seems like overkill.
I really don't think Saddam bothered us unduly, certainly not for the 'reasons stated', specially as he is a product of our own foreign policy in the 1980s. And we sure weren't bothered by him back then, when he was at his most dangerous. Look at the PNAC site and there it says that this war has been planned since 1995 or so...and we were just waiting for the trigger (9-11) that would make such a venture publicly acceptable. This war is alos a great opportunity to field test/demonstrate a whole generation of new hi-tech weaponry with the whole world watching on TV.
I am against this war, not because I am a peacenik, as I am sure you would all love to believe. On Sept 11, the United States was attacked, and as a result, we went to war against al qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan. I supported that war wholeheartedly, as did everyone else I know. I don't know of a single antiwar protest re. the Afghan campaign in the USA, and if there had been one, I would have been at a counter protest, together with thousands of others. As we all know, it didn't work out that well, but war is always unpredictable.
This time round, re. Iraq, we were NOT attacked, or even threatened with being attacked. I believe that this war, even if won very quickly will weaken and compromise America's national security, possibly decades into the future. That will result in more curtailment of the things that America holds near and dear, and what we have fought for at great expense...namely being the free-est, most open, most promising and civilized nation on the planet. And if those all those wonderful ideals are to be trashed because some unelected ideologues want to replace our free Republic with an authoritarian empire, then what the hell is left to fight for?
Althought the White House naturally says otherwise, there are many in legal circles who reckon this war is illegal, regarding both American law and international law. We've also weakened the United Nations, perhaps killed it off permamently. And...it sets a horrible precedent that if one nation suddenly decides they don't like another, they can just go to war without even using that basic kindergarten skill of talking about it. If America, that great example setter can do it, then so can we.
Also, I detest the idea of killing potentially thousands of innocent civilians just because we now have arbitrarily decided that we hate their leader, a man we used to support. Bush doesn't give a rats butt about the Iraqi people; if anyone believes that this Administration regards the welfare of the longsuffering Iraqi people as being of any importance, then I am sorry that you are so naive to be manipulated by such sanctimonious drivel and propagandized emotional blackmail.
To be continued...too tired right now, and I have to be up at 5 am.
I suspect that a lot of Iraqis will act the same way a lot of Afghanis did when we toppled the Taliban: they will follow whoever secures their immediate safety, that is, whoever is winning. I think these "irregular" army guerillas will work this way, and a lot of other civilian Iraqis will understandably keep their distance until it's quite plain that they are safe from us and Hussein. I would be quite surprised if people did throw parades and whatnot. It takes time to ease the paranoia and fear.
Uhhh, wasn't that diatribe just a more wordy version of what Groverat was describing earlier?
recall:
Quote:
You ask them a very straight question and they talk around it or use a canned anti-Bush response.
"What is 2+2?"
"George Bush is trying to do what he wants without the world's approval!"
now...
Quote:
Originally posted by alcimedes
SJO, how do you feel about the fact that a majority of Iraqi's interviewed actually want Saddam out, and have no problems with our being there?
(granted, these are the articles i've read where an actual Iraqi was interviewed, if you have different sources, please point them out)
then...
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
I haven't met anyone who doesn't want him out. The guy's a horrible specimen of humanity. Since he's such a horrible, evil, nasty, brutal, vicious, dishonest, conniving, psychpathic loose cannon, it truly makes me wonder why the U.S. supported him for so many years (1978-1990), during 3 successive administrations, until Gulf War 1, when he overstepped his limit by marching into Kuwait. The US was his ally when he was gassing Iranian positions during the Iran/Iraq war with mustard gas, using US intelligence to do so. I would hazard a guess that if he hadn't have done that, there would still be a cozy relationship between Saddam and the US, with all the WMD he had in 1990, as well as a military 3 times its current strength.
Ari Fleischer gave the show away the other day during a White House briefing: When asked if the U.S. would attack Iraq if Saddam went into exile, he blustered a bit and then acknowledged in the affirmative. Regime change is not the real reason, and WMD is still an unknown. I bet the Iraqi people would like democracy, but I bet that the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, the Yemenis, the Iranians, etc etc etc etc etc etc would love a spot of democracy also. Setting up democracy in Iraq isn't going to be pretty...or easy...but we don't do stuff like this do we, according to Bush in his inauguration address...nation building is not on the agenda.
Do Iraqis really want democracy? They haven't ever lived in a democracy. Iraqi society may not even allow a western style democracy. if it doesn't, will it be forced upon them? After the power vacuum following Saddam's exit, then what? Sunni muslims battling it out with Shiites? Then throw the liberated Kurdish people into the fray...with American troops probably getting caught in the crossfire as they try to police the whole thing. Just look at Afghanistan, it's a ghastly mess. Kabul is the only area controlled by Karzai, and after all the promises of rebuilding and reform,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2759789.stm they have nothing to show for it except al'qaida is weakened (Afghanistan is just one of 60 nations with al'qaida personnel btw), women are going to school in the capital and the rest of the country is controlled by war lords and opium harvests are at record levels.
I'm sure the Iraqis want Saddam out. He's a tyrant. But if we really wanted him out of there because he's such a menace to the rest of the world, we could have done it during Gulf War 1, saving ourselves a huge problem, as well as trashing the outpouring of good will that the world showed towards America post 9-11. Now most of the world is pissed at us, and the feelings and passions in the Arab world look potentially very dangerous already. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/...ry/2875263.stm If we had had the will during the last 12 years since the end of Gulf War 1, the worlds most powerful military could have easily "decapitated" Saddam's regime with a few well placed JDAMs any time, given just a bit of good intelligence. To launch an all out war on the whole country to achieve this end, in the meantime flattening Iraq's cultural centers, museums, Baghdad's University and a whole slew of other non military targets seems like overkill.
I really don't think Saddam bothered us unduly, certainly not for the 'reasons stated', specially as he is a product of our own foreign policy in the 1980s. And we sure weren't bothered by him back then, when he was at his most dangerous. Look at the PNAC site and there it says that this war has been planned since 1995 or so...and we were just waiting for the trigger (9-11) that would make such a venture publicly acceptable. This war is alos a great opportunity to field test/demonstrate a whole generation of new hi-tech weaponry with the whole world watching on TV.
I am against this war, not because I am a peacenik, as I am sure you would all love to believe. On Sept 11, the United States was attacked, and as a result, we went to war against al qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan. I supported that war wholeheartedly, as did everyone else I know. I don't know of a single antiwar protest re. the Afghan campaign in the USA, and if there had been one, I would have been at a counter protest, together with thousands of others. As we all know, it didn't work out that well, but war is always unpredictable.
This time round, re. Iraq, we were NOT attacked, or even threatened with being attacked. I believe that this war, even if won very quickly will weaken and compromise America's national security, possibly decades into the future. That will result in more curtailment of the things that America holds near and dear, and what we have fought for at great expense...namely being the free-est, most open, most promising and civilized nation on the planet. And if those all those wonderful ideals are to be trashed because some unelected ideologues want to replace our free Republic with an authoritarian empire, then what the hell is left to fight for?
Althought the White House naturally says otherwise, there are many in legal circles who reckon this war is illegal, regarding both American law and international law. We've also weakened the United Nations, perhaps killed it off permamently. And...it sets a horrible precedent that if one nation suddenly decides they don't like another, they can just go to war without even using that basic kindergarten skill of talking about it. If America, that great example setter can do it, then so can we.
Also, I detest the idea of killing potentially thousands of innocent civilians just because we now have arbitrarily decided that we hate their leader, a man we used to support. Bush doesn't give a rats butt about the Iraqi people; if anyone believes that this Administration regards the welfare of the longsuffering Iraqi people as being of any importance, then I am sorry that you are so naive to be manipulated by such sanctimonious drivel and propagandized emotional blackmail.
To be continued...too tired right now, and I have to be up at 5 am.
...a simple question about how do you feel about the Iraqi views concerning the ridding of Saddam, and somehow she goes right for the guilt strings about how the US supported him way back when, followed by the predictable spiel on the "unjust" war, etc, etc, etc... Geez, I almost thought I heard the sound of a string being pulled right before she started up!
overall it was a good post on her part, the entire thing was both cognisant and logical.
i think what it really boils down to is that i feel that nothing short of military action was going to get Saddam out of there. SJO, if i read the post above properly, does not. (or at least that more should have been tried before exercising that option)
i think part of what happened is that on 9/11 the current administration suddenly realized that we AREN'T safe just because we're in America. they went after the Taliban first in Afganistan.
when that was done they looked around and saw Saddam, who's been blowing off the UN rules/regs. since the first Gulf War. he's dangerous, he hates us, he's got WOMD, and he's obviously not going to play by the rules.
so, they decided enough was enough and it was time for the UN to enforce their rules.
Uhhh, wasn't that diatribe just a more wordy version of what Groverat was describing earlier?
recall:
now...
then...
...a simple question about how do you feel about the Iraqi views concerning the ridding of Saddam, and somehow she goes right for the guilt strings about how the US supported him way back when, followed by the predictable spiel on the "unjust" war, etc, etc, etc... Geez, I almost thought I heard the sound of a string being pulled right before she started up!
Randycat: I was barely 20% of the way through that reply....yes I had wandered a little off subject, and I got bored with it... so I posted it as it was, incomplete, (kinda risky in here), ...but Alcimedes' question wasn't one that is answerable in a neat little short encapsulated paragraph....
Ok lets try this as an answer: I undertand and sympathize with the Iraqis welcoming the idea of a regime change. Saddam Hussein has given the Iraqi people hell on earth for 25 years. Anything (well...almost anything) would be welcome after that ordeal. They are only welcoming the US military, not because they happen to be American but because Saddam might be gone soon. How many Iraqis know what's in store for them after the regime change? I suspect very few have any clue. If they were aware what the the most likely outcome of this war would be, possibly chaos, unrest, occupation and the plundering of their natural resources by massive foreign owned oil companies with a tiny pittance being trickled down to the Iraqi people, then perhaps they wouldnt be all that optimistic. Don't even think this is being done for the benefit of the Iraqi people...US foreign policy has never been formulated devised to help people. Only the most naive pollyanna would believe that garbage, specially coming from the lips of a heartless man like George Bush whose policies are formulated to only rewarding wealthy elites.
OK, here's a little exercise for you (and some of you others). Try reading what I wrote, then imagine it was someone else, perhaps a total newcomer posting it. Then, rebut the contents, as opposed to having a personal shy at the author. It would be so refreshing.
overall it was a good post on her part, the entire thing was both cognisant and logical.
Yikes, blow me down, whats with the suddenly charitable line? or is it sarcasm..Too tired to distinguish right now...the fvcking war is making me unable to sleep.
Quote:
i think what it really boils down to is that i feel that nothing short of military action was going to get Saddam out of there. SJO, if i read the post above properly, does not. (or at least that more should have been tried before exercising that option)
Yes that is correct.
Quote:
i think part of what happened is that on 9/11 the current administration suddenly realized that we AREN'T safe just because we're in America. they went after the Taliban first in Afganistan.
Nobody is safe anywhere. And...no amount of color coding, or homeland security acts, patriot acts or TIA schemes, trashing of constitutional protections or whatever is going to stop a determined terrorist. It's just going to turn America into the type of system that America has fought wars against.
Quote:
when that was done they looked around and saw Saddam, who's been blowing off the UN rules/regs. since the first Gulf War. he's dangerous, he hates us, he's got WOMD, and he's obviously not going to play by the rules.
so, they decided enough was enough and it was time for the UN to enforce their rules.
they wouldn't so we did.
ha! Ok Ok...who was it who has just said that the UN is irrelevant when they decide that the US is wrong on something? G.W. Bush. Oh hang on, wasn't the UN Sec Council Res 1441 the measure constantly quoted by Bush and co? Or was the UN irrelevant then too? He can't have it both ways round.
Only 20%? I'm glad you quit early then. I'm sure I've heard it from you before in bits and pieces in other post topics, anyway. I'm not sure your request for people to respond to your views is even worthwhile. You seem like the type that is soooo set in your views and conceptions, it is pretty futile to even consider that any response will have any effect on you (likely it will just draw another half-page of diatribe). Even if someone matches you point for point (which I'm sure has happened already in other topics long ago, after which people just stopped trying), you will simply be here tomorrow bemoaning the same atrocities anyway. So what is the point? ...other than pointing out that you are seemingly just a more verbose version of the charicature that Groverat described earlier.
ha! Ok Ok...who was it who has just said that the UN is irrelevant when they decide that the US is wrong on something? G.W. Bush. Oh hang on, wasn't the UN Sec Council Res 1441 the measure constantly quoted by Bush and co? Or was the UN irrelevant then too? He can't have it both ways round.
It's not inconsistency more than final realization of fact. As an example, you'll say up and down that your spouse would never cheat on you and you love them all the way until the day you find them cheating on you and thus you don't love them anymore. Is it inconsistency or just realization that something has changed and the former statement no longer applies? When it was clear the UN had no intention of decisively actioning the breach of 1441 or any of the past 14 resolutions, it seems safe to say they have become irrelevant.
Only 20%? I'm glad you quit early then. I'm sure I've heard it from you before in bits and pieces in other post topics, anyway. I'm not sure your request for people to respond to your views is even worthwhile. You seem like the type that is soooo set in your views and conceptions, it is pretty futile to even consider that any response will have any effect on you (likely it will just draw another half-page of diatribe). Even if someone matches you point for point (which I'm sure has happened already in other topics long ago, after which people just stopped trying), you will simply be here tomorrow bemoaning the same atrocities anyway. So what is the point? ...other than pointing out that you are seemingly just a more verbose version of the charicature that Groverat described earlier.
Thats unfair and unrealistic. I would love to feel "comfortable" with this war, if it is possible to feel "comfortable" about violence, which I find it hard to. I undertand that almost all of you in here are male, and violence is far more acceptable and Ok for you. I feel so skeptical about this war because of what I have read, and also because this administration has told so many lies to the US people and the world to bolster their case. Some people in here have an attitude more entrenched and inflexible than mione, such as Scott, SDW, Finboy and others. I am singled out purely beacuse of the political content of my posts, and *not* because of how flexible or otherwise my views are.
SJO, how do you feel about the fact that a majority of Iraqi's interviewed actually want Saddam out, and have no problems with our being there?
(granted, these are the articles i've read where an actual Iraqi was interviewed, if you have different sources, please point them out)
Now it looks as if the Iraqis might be waking up and smelling something unsavory. Even ABC is reporting on this, the Iraqis are already getting pissed, and the war is not even a week old
Quote:
"That was yesterday. Traveling unescorted into Safwan today, I got a far different picture. Rather than affection and appreciation, I saw a lot of hostility toward the coalition forces, the United States and President Bush. Some were even directed towards the media. (It was the first time I heard somebody refer to me as a "Satan.") To be sure, conversations with people on the street here begin relatively calmly. But the more they talked, the angrier they got. ......" etc etc
i was serious in my comment above. your post well well thought out, not emotional etc.
as for the iraqi's? at this point i'd say wait a few days until the food and water starts coming in. sounds like people are pissed because they're starving, and i don't blame them.
i think that when all is said and done, the Iraqi people will have a shot at a country that is working for them, instead of robbing them blind. i guess time will tell, i have more faith that the U.S. will do the right thing for the Iraqi people (schools, hospitals etc.) than it seems you do, regardless of the motives behind helping them out.
i guess the problem is that you can argue motive all day w/o really making any headway. neither one of us will ever know the motives of our country's leaders, and we assume based on what we'd like to believe.
however, it is the actions that are the most important factor. if they do the right thing, i don't care what people think their motives are.
Comments
Originally posted by alcimedes
SJO, how do you feel about the fact that a majority of Iraqi's interviewed actually want Saddam out, and have no problems with our being there?
(granted, these are the articles i've read where an actual Iraqi was interviewed, if you have different sources, please point them out)
I haven't met anyone who doesn't want him out. The guy's a horrible specimen of humanity. Since he's such a horrible, evil, nasty, brutal, vicious, dishonest, conniving, psychpathic loose cannon, it truly makes me wonder why the U.S. supported him for so many years (1978-1990), during 3 successive administrations, until Gulf War 1, when he overstepped his limit by marching into Kuwait. The US was his ally when he was gassing Iranian positions during the Iran/Iraq war with mustard gas, using US intelligence to do so. I would hazard a guess that if he hadn't have done that, there would still be a cozy relationship between Saddam and the US, with all the WMD he had in 1990, as well as a military 3 times its current strength.
Ari Fleischer gave the show away the other day during a White House briefing: When asked if the U.S. would attack Iraq if Saddam went into exile, he blustered a bit and then acknowledged in the affirmative. Regime change is not the real reason, and WMD is still an unknown. I bet the Iraqi people would like democracy, but I bet that the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, the Yemenis, the Iranians, etc etc etc etc etc etc would love a spot of democracy also. Setting up democracy in Iraq isn't going to be pretty...or easy...but we don't do stuff like this do we, according to Bush in his inauguration address...nation building is not on the agenda.
Do Iraqis really want democracy? They haven't ever lived in a democracy. Iraqi society may not even allow a western style democracy. if it doesn't, will it be forced upon them? After the power vacuum following Saddam's exit, then what? Sunni muslims battling it out with Shiites? Then throw the liberated Kurdish people into the fray...with American troops probably getting caught in the crossfire as they try to police the whole thing. Just look at Afghanistan, it's a ghastly mess. Kabul is the only area controlled by Karzai, and after all the promises of rebuilding and reform,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2759789.stm they have nothing to show for it except al'qaida is weakened (Afghanistan is just one of 60 nations with al'qaida personnel btw), women are going to school in the capital and the rest of the country is controlled by war lords and opium harvests are at record levels.
I'm sure the Iraqis want Saddam out. He's a tyrant. But if we really wanted him out of there because he's such a menace to the rest of the world, we could have done it during Gulf War 1, saving ourselves a huge problem, as well as trashing the outpouring of good will that the world showed towards America post 9-11. Now most of the world is pissed at us, and the feelings and passions in the Arab world look potentially very dangerous already. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/...ry/2875263.stm If we had had the will during the last 12 years since the end of Gulf War 1, the worlds most powerful military could have easily "decapitated" Saddam's regime with a few well placed JDAMs any time, given just a bit of good intelligence. To launch an all out war on the whole country to achieve this end, in the meantime flattening Iraq's cultural centers, museums, Baghdad's University and a whole slew of other non military targets seems like overkill.
I really don't think Saddam bothered us unduly, certainly not for the 'reasons stated', specially as he is a product of our own foreign policy in the 1980s. And we sure weren't bothered by him back then, when he was at his most dangerous. Look at the PNAC site and there it says that this war has been planned since 1995 or so...and we were just waiting for the trigger (9-11) that would make such a venture publicly acceptable. This war is alos a great opportunity to field test/demonstrate a whole generation of new hi-tech weaponry with the whole world watching on TV.
I am against this war, not because I am a peacenik, as I am sure you would all love to believe. On Sept 11, the United States was attacked, and as a result, we went to war against al qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan. I supported that war wholeheartedly, as did everyone else I know. I don't know of a single antiwar protest re. the Afghan campaign in the USA, and if there had been one, I would have been at a counter protest, together with thousands of others. As we all know, it didn't work out that well, but war is always unpredictable.
This time round, re. Iraq, we were NOT attacked, or even threatened with being attacked. I believe that this war, even if won very quickly will weaken and compromise America's national security, possibly decades into the future. That will result in more curtailment of the things that America holds near and dear, and what we have fought for at great expense...namely being the free-est, most open, most promising and civilized nation on the planet. And if those all those wonderful ideals are to be trashed because some unelected ideologues want to replace our free Republic with an authoritarian empire, then what the hell is left to fight for?
Althought the White House naturally says otherwise, there are many in legal circles who reckon this war is illegal, regarding both American law and international law. We've also weakened the United Nations, perhaps killed it off permamently. And...it sets a horrible precedent that if one nation suddenly decides they don't like another, they can just go to war without even using that basic kindergarten skill of talking about it. If America, that great example setter can do it, then so can we.
Also, I detest the idea of killing potentially thousands of innocent civilians just because we now have arbitrarily decided that we hate their leader, a man we used to support. Bush doesn't give a rats butt about the Iraqi people; if anyone believes that this Administration regards the welfare of the longsuffering Iraqi people as being of any importance, then I am sorry that you are so naive to be manipulated by such sanctimonious drivel and propagandized emotional blackmail.
To be continued...too tired right now, and I have to be up at 5 am.
recall:
You ask them a very straight question and they talk around it or use a canned anti-Bush response.
"What is 2+2?"
"George Bush is trying to do what he wants without the world's approval!"
now...
Originally posted by alcimedes
SJO, how do you feel about the fact that a majority of Iraqi's interviewed actually want Saddam out, and have no problems with our being there?
(granted, these are the articles i've read where an actual Iraqi was interviewed, if you have different sources, please point them out)
then...
Originally posted by sammi jo
I haven't met anyone who doesn't want him out. The guy's a horrible specimen of humanity. Since he's such a horrible, evil, nasty, brutal, vicious, dishonest, conniving, psychpathic loose cannon, it truly makes me wonder why the U.S. supported him for so many years (1978-1990), during 3 successive administrations, until Gulf War 1, when he overstepped his limit by marching into Kuwait. The US was his ally when he was gassing Iranian positions during the Iran/Iraq war with mustard gas, using US intelligence to do so. I would hazard a guess that if he hadn't have done that, there would still be a cozy relationship between Saddam and the US, with all the WMD he had in 1990, as well as a military 3 times its current strength.
Ari Fleischer gave the show away the other day during a White House briefing: When asked if the U.S. would attack Iraq if Saddam went into exile, he blustered a bit and then acknowledged in the affirmative. Regime change is not the real reason, and WMD is still an unknown. I bet the Iraqi people would like democracy, but I bet that the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, the Yemenis, the Iranians, etc etc etc etc etc etc would love a spot of democracy also. Setting up democracy in Iraq isn't going to be pretty...or easy...but we don't do stuff like this do we, according to Bush in his inauguration address...nation building is not on the agenda.
Do Iraqis really want democracy? They haven't ever lived in a democracy. Iraqi society may not even allow a western style democracy. if it doesn't, will it be forced upon them? After the power vacuum following Saddam's exit, then what? Sunni muslims battling it out with Shiites? Then throw the liberated Kurdish people into the fray...with American troops probably getting caught in the crossfire as they try to police the whole thing. Just look at Afghanistan, it's a ghastly mess. Kabul is the only area controlled by Karzai, and after all the promises of rebuilding and reform,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2759789.stm they have nothing to show for it except al'qaida is weakened (Afghanistan is just one of 60 nations with al'qaida personnel btw), women are going to school in the capital and the rest of the country is controlled by war lords and opium harvests are at record levels.
I'm sure the Iraqis want Saddam out. He's a tyrant. But if we really wanted him out of there because he's such a menace to the rest of the world, we could have done it during Gulf War 1, saving ourselves a huge problem, as well as trashing the outpouring of good will that the world showed towards America post 9-11. Now most of the world is pissed at us, and the feelings and passions in the Arab world look potentially very dangerous already. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/...ry/2875263.stm If we had had the will during the last 12 years since the end of Gulf War 1, the worlds most powerful military could have easily "decapitated" Saddam's regime with a few well placed JDAMs any time, given just a bit of good intelligence. To launch an all out war on the whole country to achieve this end, in the meantime flattening Iraq's cultural centers, museums, Baghdad's University and a whole slew of other non military targets seems like overkill.
I really don't think Saddam bothered us unduly, certainly not for the 'reasons stated', specially as he is a product of our own foreign policy in the 1980s. And we sure weren't bothered by him back then, when he was at his most dangerous. Look at the PNAC site and there it says that this war has been planned since 1995 or so...and we were just waiting for the trigger (9-11) that would make such a venture publicly acceptable. This war is alos a great opportunity to field test/demonstrate a whole generation of new hi-tech weaponry with the whole world watching on TV.
I am against this war, not because I am a peacenik, as I am sure you would all love to believe. On Sept 11, the United States was attacked, and as a result, we went to war against al qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan. I supported that war wholeheartedly, as did everyone else I know. I don't know of a single antiwar protest re. the Afghan campaign in the USA, and if there had been one, I would have been at a counter protest, together with thousands of others. As we all know, it didn't work out that well, but war is always unpredictable.
This time round, re. Iraq, we were NOT attacked, or even threatened with being attacked. I believe that this war, even if won very quickly will weaken and compromise America's national security, possibly decades into the future. That will result in more curtailment of the things that America holds near and dear, and what we have fought for at great expense...namely being the free-est, most open, most promising and civilized nation on the planet. And if those all those wonderful ideals are to be trashed because some unelected ideologues want to replace our free Republic with an authoritarian empire, then what the hell is left to fight for?
Althought the White House naturally says otherwise, there are many in legal circles who reckon this war is illegal, regarding both American law and international law. We've also weakened the United Nations, perhaps killed it off permamently. And...it sets a horrible precedent that if one nation suddenly decides they don't like another, they can just go to war without even using that basic kindergarten skill of talking about it. If America, that great example setter can do it, then so can we.
Also, I detest the idea of killing potentially thousands of innocent civilians just because we now have arbitrarily decided that we hate their leader, a man we used to support. Bush doesn't give a rats butt about the Iraqi people; if anyone believes that this Administration regards the welfare of the longsuffering Iraqi people as being of any importance, then I am sorry that you are so naive to be manipulated by such sanctimonious drivel and propagandized emotional blackmail.
To be continued...too tired right now, and I have to be up at 5 am.
...a simple question about how do you feel about the Iraqi views concerning the ridding of Saddam, and somehow she goes right for the guilt strings about how the US supported him way back when, followed by the predictable spiel on the "unjust" war, etc, etc, etc... Geez, I almost thought I heard the sound of a string being pulled right before she started up!
overall it was a good post on her part, the entire thing was both cognisant and logical.
i think what it really boils down to is that i feel that nothing short of military action was going to get Saddam out of there. SJO, if i read the post above properly, does not. (or at least that more should have been tried before exercising that option)
i think part of what happened is that on 9/11 the current administration suddenly realized that we AREN'T safe just because we're in America. they went after the Taliban first in Afganistan.
when that was done they looked around and saw Saddam, who's been blowing off the UN rules/regs. since the first Gulf War. he's dangerous, he hates us, he's got WOMD, and he's obviously not going to play by the rules.
so, they decided enough was enough and it was time for the UN to enforce their rules.
they wouldn't so we did.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Uhhh, wasn't that diatribe just a more wordy version of what Groverat was describing earlier?
recall:
now...
then...
...a simple question about how do you feel about the Iraqi views concerning the ridding of Saddam, and somehow she goes right for the guilt strings about how the US supported him way back when, followed by the predictable spiel on the "unjust" war, etc, etc, etc... Geez, I almost thought I heard the sound of a string being pulled right before she started up!
Randycat: I was barely 20% of the way through that reply....yes I had wandered a little off subject, and I got bored with it... so I posted it as it was, incomplete, (kinda risky in here), ...but Alcimedes' question wasn't one that is answerable in a neat little short encapsulated paragraph....
Ok lets try this as an answer: I undertand and sympathize with the Iraqis welcoming the idea of a regime change. Saddam Hussein has given the Iraqi people hell on earth for 25 years. Anything (well...almost anything) would be welcome after that ordeal. They are only welcoming the US military, not because they happen to be American but because Saddam might be gone soon. How many Iraqis know what's in store for them after the regime change? I suspect very few have any clue. If they were aware what the the most likely outcome of this war would be, possibly chaos, unrest, occupation and the plundering of their natural resources by massive foreign owned oil companies with a tiny pittance being trickled down to the Iraqi people, then perhaps they wouldnt be all that optimistic. Don't even think this is being done for the benefit of the Iraqi people...US foreign policy has never been formulated devised to help people. Only the most naive pollyanna would believe that garbage, specially coming from the lips of a heartless man like George Bush whose policies are formulated to only rewarding wealthy elites.
OK, here's a little exercise for you (and some of you others). Try reading what I wrote, then imagine it was someone else, perhaps a total newcomer posting it. Then, rebut the contents, as opposed to having a personal shy at the author. It would be so refreshing.
Originally posted by alcimedes
well, i did ask her how she felt about it.
overall it was a good post on her part, the entire thing was both cognisant and logical.
Yikes, blow me down, whats with the suddenly charitable line? or is it sarcasm..Too tired to distinguish right now...the fvcking war is making me unable to sleep.
i think what it really boils down to is that i feel that nothing short of military action was going to get Saddam out of there. SJO, if i read the post above properly, does not. (or at least that more should have been tried before exercising that option)
Yes that is correct.
i think part of what happened is that on 9/11 the current administration suddenly realized that we AREN'T safe just because we're in America. they went after the Taliban first in Afganistan.
Nobody is safe anywhere. And...no amount of color coding, or homeland security acts, patriot acts or TIA schemes, trashing of constitutional protections or whatever is going to stop a determined terrorist. It's just going to turn America into the type of system that America has fought wars against.
when that was done they looked around and saw Saddam, who's been blowing off the UN rules/regs. since the first Gulf War. he's dangerous, he hates us, he's got WOMD, and he's obviously not going to play by the rules.
so, they decided enough was enough and it was time for the UN to enforce their rules.
they wouldn't so we did.
ha! Ok Ok...who was it who has just said that the UN is irrelevant when they decide that the US is wrong on something? G.W. Bush. Oh hang on, wasn't the UN Sec Council Res 1441 the measure constantly quoted by Bush and co? Or was the UN irrelevant then too? He can't have it both ways round.
Originally posted by sammi jo
ha! Ok Ok...who was it who has just said that the UN is irrelevant when they decide that the US is wrong on something? G.W. Bush. Oh hang on, wasn't the UN Sec Council Res 1441 the measure constantly quoted by Bush and co? Or was the UN irrelevant then too? He can't have it both ways round.
It's not inconsistency more than final realization of fact. As an example, you'll say up and down that your spouse would never cheat on you and you love them all the way until the day you find them cheating on you and thus you don't love them anymore. Is it inconsistency or just realization that something has changed and the former statement no longer applies? When it was clear the UN had no intention of decisively actioning the breach of 1441 or any of the past 14 resolutions, it seems safe to say they have become irrelevant.
Originally posted by Randycat99
Only 20%? I'm glad you quit early then. I'm sure I've heard it from you before in bits and pieces in other post topics, anyway. I'm not sure your request for people to respond to your views is even worthwhile. You seem like the type that is soooo set in your views and conceptions, it is pretty futile to even consider that any response will have any effect on you (likely it will just draw another half-page of diatribe). Even if someone matches you point for point (which I'm sure has happened already in other topics long ago, after which people just stopped trying), you will simply be here tomorrow bemoaning the same atrocities anyway. So what is the point? ...other than pointing out that you are seemingly just a more verbose version of the charicature that Groverat described earlier.
Thats unfair and unrealistic. I would love to feel "comfortable" with this war, if it is possible to feel "comfortable" about violence, which I find it hard to. I undertand that almost all of you in here are male, and violence is far more acceptable and Ok for you. I feel so skeptical about this war because of what I have read, and also because this administration has told so many lies to the US people and the world to bolster their case. Some people in here have an attitude more entrenched and inflexible than mione, such as Scott, SDW, Finboy and others. I am singled out purely beacuse of the political content of my posts, and *not* because of how flexible or otherwise my views are.
Originally posted by alcimedes
SJO, how do you feel about the fact that a majority of Iraqi's interviewed actually want Saddam out, and have no problems with our being there?
(granted, these are the articles i've read where an actual Iraqi was interviewed, if you have different sources, please point them out)
Now it looks as if the Iraqis might be waking up and smelling something unsavory. Even ABC is reporting on this, the Iraqis are already getting pissed, and the war is not even a week old
"That was yesterday. Traveling unescorted into Safwan today, I got a far different picture. Rather than affection and appreciation, I saw a lot of hostility toward the coalition forces, the United States and President Bush. Some were even directed towards the media. (It was the first time I heard somebody refer to me as a "Satan.") To be sure, conversations with people on the street here begin relatively calmly. But the more they talked, the angrier they got. ......" etc etc
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/W...wan030322.html
as for the iraqi's? at this point i'd say wait a few days until the food and water starts coming in. sounds like people are pissed because they're starving, and i don't blame them.
i think that when all is said and done, the Iraqi people will have a shot at a country that is working for them, instead of robbing them blind. i guess time will tell, i have more faith that the U.S. will do the right thing for the Iraqi people (schools, hospitals etc.) than it seems you do, regardless of the motives behind helping them out.
i guess the problem is that you can argue motive all day w/o really making any headway. neither one of us will ever know the motives of our country's leaders, and we assume based on what we'd like to believe.
however, it is the actions that are the most important factor. if they do the right thing, i don't care what people think their motives are.