GEN. KIMMITT: We've seen a number of intelligence reports that vary widely. But I would tell you that sort of the mean figure, that is we typically talk somewhere on the order of 3,000 to 5,000 active anti-coalition forces out there; roughly -- perhaps 5 to 10 percent of them from abroad. The vast majority of them we still believe are homegrown anti-coalition elements, possibly former regime elements, possibly disenfranchised youth. But those are normally the numbers that we throw around.
especially the Shia who were told that we would support their uprising . . . . when they felt the boot land, alone and unheard.
Tell that to the tens of thousands who have died since the start of the war, a far higher number than those that would have died at Hussain's hands in that time period . . . and all the women who were schooled and treated near as equals . . . all the people who had work, all the people who were fed (except for under the sanctions) and had medical treatment available, all the people who were educated
Make no mistake, I think Hussain had to go!! . . . but one of the reasons that the Bush admin thought that democracy would take in that land was because of the civil infrastructure listed above . . . an infrastructure that no longer exists
and one that can only exist in a Capatalist country after years of development or through seriously socialistic minded input
Look at Russia: we tried the 'shock treatment' thinking that the institutions of civil society that we enjoy (*cough *ehem* health care) would grow over night . . . but they take years of development of intertwined social interests and intsitutions, years of pampering and coddling and minute growth . . .
We went in with sledge-hammers and expected a miracle transformation . . . but we should have seen what would happen and what will probably happen: decline in social standards of living and backsliding in terms of rights and freedoms then maybe ten or twenty years they might achieve the level of Iran
I think Hussain had to go!! but disregarding realities, nuanced realities may not fir into black&white land but they need to be taken into account if one is going to take on International Adventurism!
I amy be wrong, but you sound as if you think that democracy and freedom are not worth suffering or persevering a bit for.
You also seem to think that a tyranny is no better or worse that a democracy. 6 of one half a dozen of the other right?
That may be where some of the tension here is caused. I for one believe that freedom and democracy are dependent on each other, and are worth fighting for or even suffering for.
Struggle makes the reward so much sweeter. No-one wants anyone to suffer, however it has to happen to attain freedom and democracy.
Don't forget the US and other freedom loving countries are suffering right alongside those people, because we all want freedom to prevail.
I amy be wrong, but you sound as if you think that democracy and freedom are not worth suffering or persevering a bit for.
You also seem to think that a tyranny is no better or worse that a democracy. 6 of one half a dozen of the other right?
That may be where some of the tension here is caused. I for one believe that freedom and democracy are dependent on each other, and are worth fighting for or even suffering for.
Struggle makes the reward so much sweeter. No-one wants anyone to suffer, however it has to happen to attain freedom and democracy.
Don't forget the US and other freedom loving countries are suffering right alongside those people, because we all want freedom to prevail.
I'll take that seriously when you you step forward prepared to do the suffering. Enlist. Sign up as a civilian contractor. Volunteer and go on your own.
Blithely proffering the suffering of others as right and necessary is immoral on the face of it.
I'll take that seriously when you you step forward prepared to do the suffering. Enlist. Sign up as a civilian contractor. Volunteer and go on your own.
Blithely proffering the suffering of others as right and necessary is immoral on the face of it.
I hate this retort.
We can't all enlist. If we did we wouldn't have a functioning society anymore. And because one does not undertake a task first hand, does not mean that they cannot see necessity of the undertaking itself.
Regarding the earlier post about Democracy and Freedom being worth certain sacrficies. On an abstracted level I agree, but, I'm sorry to tell you that but most Americans are *not* "suffering along with the others". We just are not. Most Americans (myself included) are so utterly detached from the reality of this (or any other war) in everyday life, it's not even worth making a wise-crack about. It's sad it what it is.
Until this prison thing came to light -- and it only did so because of its scandalous nature... Americans love a good scandal -- virtually everything we learned or saw of Iraq on a daily basis, was superficial at best. Window dressing (no matter which way the story in question is being spun).
We are completely isolated from this war geographically, and even more so socially because our courageous leaders refuse to acknolwedge the Americans who are dying every day. We don't know how they die, what they were doing when they died, how many family members they left behind or anything else. What we get, we get from news wires. We're detached from it on an emotional level unless we have people we know personally who are over there.
Not because we don't care on a fundamental level -- I think people do care and do want the war to end generally -- but because most Americans are always too frigging busy to bother with anything that isn't a part of their precious little daily routine. Whether consciously or not, we detach ourselves from the realities of war. And the news media and government only serve to enforce this behavior, rather than work against it. There is no one out there right now, really shoving some hard-hitting stuff in our faces (that has to do with the war itself and how it's being fought, won or lost).
That's why Nightline's show the other night was so useful / gripping, albeit on a somewhat superficial level because of time contstraints. Hell we could fill several days worth of footage and detailed reporting just get people up to current-day status....
I'll take that seriously when you you step forward prepared to do the suffering. Enlist. Sign up as a civilian contractor. Volunteer and go on your own.
Blithely proffering the suffering of others as right and necessary is immoral on the face of it.
The problem, as I see it, is we (US and coalition nations' people) must be willing to take the casualties.
There any number of ways to suffer and sacrifice, those that you mention are but a few. Suffering and sacrifice can be a good thing in the long run, if for the right reason.
WWII is a testament to that. You think you have it bad under this president?
You could be sig heiling to the Fuhrer, with no opportunity to vote him out of office.
Perspective is a great tool. We should all use it.
if we would behave in accordance to geneva conventions in the first place, this wouldn't have happen.
That wishful thinking hypothesis is unfounded and countered by the fact that such barbaric acts were carried (and may be carried in the future, alas) independently of whether you behave in accordance or not.
This said, prisoners should be treated with decency indpendently of what the beastly lynching mobs do or not.
If you want to succeed in Iraq (which you ought to since you are already on the ground), which I do, you'd have to put your own organisation in order as well, the horrendous acts of abuse in Abu-Gharib prison indicate an obvious lack of such order.
Note that by acting more appropriately you will not be rewarded by your enemies acting more humanely as well, nor would you gain the sympathy of your political detractors (not even on the AppleOutsider board). Then again if it's sympathy one wants, one should probably move to a real human-made disaster area, like the Soudan.
No doubt. There's another horrifying conflict most westerners are just oblivious to. There are others historically speaking as well. Several in Africa, the Armenian Genocide (which the scumbag Turkish government to this day denies, despite mountains of evidence), etc.
I amy be wrong, but you sound as if you think that democracy and freedom are not worth suffering or persevering a bit for.
You also seem to think that a tyranny is no better or worse that a democracy. 6 of one half a dozen of the other right?
That may be where some of the tension here is caused. I for one believe that freedom and democracy are dependent on each other, and are worth fighting for or even suffering for.
Struggle makes the reward so much sweeter. No-one wants anyone to suffer, however it has to happen to attain freedom and democracy.
Don't forget the US and other freedom loving countries are suffering right alongside those people, because we all want freedom to prevail.
I sound that way only if you are incapable of thinking beyond on/off, black/white, yes/no, good/evil dichotomies . . .
I said quite clearly that Hussain needed to go . . .I even bolded it because I knew that some, who are either too lazy to read the whole thing or are incapable of believing the world has more shades than two, wouldn't SEE IT otherwise!
My post is about the fact that the Institutions which we have and cherish came about through a long painful history: they only arrived after years of struggle
-(and, dare I say, the humane aspects of which struggle nearly always were motivated by classically 'Liberal' ideas)-
and years of the ever increasing intertwining of institutions: health and safety standards, EPA, police oversite commitees, Rights laws and organizations, anti-descrimination, universal primary education etc etc etc (we still seem incapable of taking some final steps that many civilized countries seem easily to do =universal health care etc)
My post also states that should a country go from Tyrany to "freedom" loving democracy in one fell swoop, without going through the long history of development, it would probably need to have a long-term form of transitional infrastructure akin to socialism (hence China's semi-success transition and Russia's painful quagmire --and also, why the WTO method of universally prying open undeveloped local economies and forcing them into radical Laissez-faire is innapropriate for specific circumstance)
Bush and gang chose Iraq for their great Democracy experiment (Pax Americana) because they saw that it had the institutions in place that might transition well into a secular democracy . . . granted these institutions were the product of a Tyranical form of socialism they existed nonetheless.
What they did wrong was they didn't see that the war would destroy those institutions and also unleash the dormant tribal and religious affiliations beneath the Hussain boot . . . they just didn't look at the reality of the area because they had a 'Vision' to pursue instead!!
It would take a miracle for Iraq to come anywhere near the social stability and benefit that it had under Hussain OUTSIDE of the lack of freedom and brutal oppression . . . it will most likely be replaced with a lack of freedom (due to innumerable things, including severe economic disparities) and brutal oppression of a different sort.
but still Hussain had to go . . . we should have thought about better means to get him out and get the transition going . . . we would have saved lives and not alienated America for the future.
I sound that way only if you are incapable of thinking beyond on/off, black/white, yes/no, good/evil dichotomies . . .
I said quite clearly that Hussain needed to go . . .I even bolded it because I knew that some, who are either too lazy to read the whole thing or are incapable of believing the world has more shades than two, wouldn't SEE IT otherwise!
My post is about the fact that the Institutions which we have and cherish came about through a long painful history: they only arrived after years of struggle
-(and, dare I say, the humane aspects of which struggle nearly always were motivated by classically 'Liberal' ideas)-
and years of the ever increasing intertwining of institutions: health and safety standards, EPA, police oversite commitees, Rights laws and organizations, anti-descrimination, universal primary education etc etc etc (we still seem incapable of taking some final steps that many civilized countries seem easily to do =universal health care etc)
My post also states that should a country go from Tyrany to "freedom" loving democracy in one fell swoop, without going through the long history of development, it would probably need to have a long-term form of transitional infrastructure akin to socialism (hence China's semi-success transition and Russia's painful quagmire --and also, why the WTO method of universally prying open undeveloped local economies and forcing them into radical Laissez-faire is innapropriate for specific circumstance)
Bush and gang chose Iraq for their great Democracy experiment (Pax Americana) because they saw that it had the institutions in place that might transition well into a secular democracy . . . granted these institutions were the product of a Tyranical form of socialism they existed nonetheless.
What they did wrong was they didn't see that the war would destroy those institutions and also unleash the dormant tribal and religious affiliations beneath the Hussain boot . . . they just didn't look at the reality of the area because they had a 'Vision' to pursue instead!!
It would take a miracle for Iraq to come anywhere near the social stability and benefit that it had under Hussain OUTSIDE of the lack of freedom and brutal oppression . . . it will most likely be replaced with a lack of freedom (due to innumerable things, including severe economic disparities) and brutal oppression of a different sort.
but still Hussain had to go . . . we should have thought about better means to get him out and get the transition going . . . we would have saved lives and not alienated America for the future.
I agree with a lot of what you are saying, however the part that I object to is how you seem to have declared it a failure, after such a short time. I could be wrong, but that is what I am getting from this and previous posts.
These things will be verified a success or failure long after this present admin is gone. I saw an interview where bush said just that. I think he may being looking further down the road than a lot here in AO and many talking heads in the media.
This is not an overnight "experiment", as would put it.
These things will be verified a success or failure long after this present admin is gone. I saw an interview where bush said just that. I think he may being looking further down the road than a lot here in AO and many talking heads in the media.
a) Bush isn't the one creating policy
b) The situation is already counter to the goals and expectations of the enacted policies as defined in the beginnning by those who created the policies.
You don't get it: it is a failure from the get-go. And the main reason it is a filure is because it was done out of purely Ideological motivations
and by that I mean ideology in the way that i defined it in another thread: false relationship to real conditions (not just political ideas)
it failed Because of its origins as ideological 'Vision'; The president lied to the American people get it going (Wollfowitz admitted as much) and alienated the rest of our, up till then, sympathetic allies, other countries SEE-RIGHT-THROUGH this, they can see that it is motivated out of some sort of unrealistic 'Vision' at best and/or out of a power and oil grab at the worst
(IMO it is a little of both)
because of its origin as Phantasm it was bound to fail, and has done so, and will do so, and will get worse and worse unless we learn to adjust to the realities (which, unfortunately, is part of what characterizes 'Ideology': it inability to adjust to realities)
BTW another good way of recognizing what I mean by 'Ideology' is when abstract generaliteis, such as "Freedom" become absolute and "Truthful'
and even more telling, when they are thrown around to justify everything as if they are universally understood and universally applicable and yet are never defined and/or even questioned and yet still manage to be the overriding reason for some idea or action.
They become empty signifiers signifying nothing: they show the FALSENESS in the Ideology because they are empty of any real content and yet they are related to reality and attempting to fit reality into its empty image.
Now, of course I love 'Freedom' as much as the next guy: give me a relational definition of freedom, define how it will be instituted and gieve me counter-examles of different ways of interpreting what it meansI will love YOUR idea of it too.
However it is being used here as merely an emblem of 'our-team' vx the 'evil-doers'
(can you believe that the president of the supposedly most advanced country in the whole history of humanity uses terms like 'evil-doers' and 'bad-guys'?!?!?!
The problem, as I see it, is we (US and coalition nations' people) must be willing to take the casualties.
There any number of ways to suffer and sacrifice, those that you mention are but a few. Suffering and sacrifice can be a good thing in the long run, if for the right reason.
WWII is a testament to that. You think you have it bad under this president?
You could be sig heiling to the Fuhrer, with no opportunity to vote him out of office.
Perspective is a great tool. We should all use it.
The problem being that it is not our freedom that is being fought over.
The Iraqi people got no vote on the mechanism of their "liberation". We
are using their country, and to a large extent, their blood, to forward a dubious, untested notion of "spreading democracy".
Which is why I think fans of "blood, sweat and tears", when the vast majority of the bleeding, sweating, and crying is being done by a people most of know next to nothing about beyond our desire for them to be just like us, should be pepared to make some actual sacrifice.
There may well be any number of ways to suffer and sacrifice, have you submited yourself to any of them?
Man, this sucks. i'm not sure if i can watch 'Kingdom Hospital' now. i'm serious. those who watch it will know what i mean.. i'm surprised noone started a thread about that show
The problem being that it is not our freedom that is being fought over.
The Iraqi people got no vote on the mechanism of their "liberation". We
are using their country, and to a large extent, their blood, to forward a dubious, untested notion of "spreading democracy".
Which is why I think fans of "blood, sweat and tears", when the vast majority of the bleeding, sweating, and crying is being done by a people most of know next to nothing about beyond our desire for them to be just like us, should be pepared to make some actual sacrifice.
There may well be any number of ways to suffer and sacrifice, have you submited yourself to any of them?
Well said (unlike my sprawling post above)
It gets me thinking about it like this:
Iraqi - "I don't have the Freedom to be be free from your 'Freedom' that you impose on me!"
We have a duty to watch, this and all of the suffering caused in our names.
This was horrific but does anyone seriously believe that the families of innocent men, women and children slaughtered by our hi-tech weapons felt less revulsion?
Killing is gruesome and barbaric.
Bombs, bullets fragmentation devices etc are at least as likely to cause agonising death as what was seen here. We only allow it because we can consider the recipients 'other', because we kid ourselves that the pain we cause is just and because we sanitize out the images of horror with censorship.
We need to see more. It needs to happen less. Not seeing it is not the answer.
They are Iraqis who are remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime. They still represent a tiny majority of the Iraqi population as a whole. And Al Qaeda is backing the insurgency movement. I am not making this stuff up.
Comments
Originally posted by 7E7
Do you really think the Iraqi people are the ones we are fighting over there? The people we are fighting against are Al Qaeda backed terrorists
Funny, because not even the US military agrees with you.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...insurgency.htm
Still, most of the insurgent activity in the country, [Abizaid] remarked, "is primarily Iraqi."
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2...200403043.html
GEN. KIMMITT: We've seen a number of intelligence reports that vary widely. But I would tell you that sort of the mean figure, that is we typically talk somewhere on the order of 3,000 to 5,000 active anti-coalition forces out there; roughly -- perhaps 5 to 10 percent of them from abroad. The vast majority of them we still believe are homegrown anti-coalition elements, possibly former regime elements, possibly disenfranchised youth. But those are normally the numbers that we throw around.
http://www.cjtf7.army.mil/media-info...eft040127a.htm
So much for that false belief of yours.
Originally posted by pfflam
I agree
especially the Shia who were told that we would support their uprising . . . . when they felt the boot land, alone and unheard.
Tell that to the tens of thousands who have died since the start of the war, a far higher number than those that would have died at Hussain's hands in that time period . . . and all the women who were schooled and treated near as equals . . . all the people who had work, all the people who were fed (except for under the sanctions) and had medical treatment available, all the people who were educated
Make no mistake, I think Hussain had to go!! . . . but one of the reasons that the Bush admin thought that democracy would take in that land was because of the civil infrastructure listed above . . . an infrastructure that no longer exists
and one that can only exist in a Capatalist country after years of development or through seriously socialistic minded input
Look at Russia: we tried the 'shock treatment' thinking that the institutions of civil society that we enjoy (*cough *ehem* health care) would grow over night . . . but they take years of development of intertwined social interests and intsitutions, years of pampering and coddling and minute growth . . .
We went in with sledge-hammers and expected a miracle transformation . . . but we should have seen what would happen and what will probably happen: decline in social standards of living and backsliding in terms of rights and freedoms then maybe ten or twenty years they might achieve the level of Iran
I think Hussain had to go!! but disregarding realities, nuanced realities may not fir into black&white land but they need to be taken into account if one is going to take on International Adventurism!
I amy be wrong, but you sound as if you think that democracy and freedom are not worth suffering or persevering a bit for.
You also seem to think that a tyranny is no better or worse that a democracy. 6 of one half a dozen of the other right?
That may be where some of the tension here is caused. I for one believe that freedom and democracy are dependent on each other, and are worth fighting for or even suffering for.
Struggle makes the reward so much sweeter. No-one wants anyone to suffer, however it has to happen to attain freedom and democracy.
Don't forget the US and other freedom loving countries are suffering right alongside those people, because we all want freedom to prevail.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I amy be wrong, but you sound as if you think that democracy and freedom are not worth suffering or persevering a bit for.
You also seem to think that a tyranny is no better or worse that a democracy. 6 of one half a dozen of the other right?
That may be where some of the tension here is caused. I for one believe that freedom and democracy are dependent on each other, and are worth fighting for or even suffering for.
Struggle makes the reward so much sweeter. No-one wants anyone to suffer, however it has to happen to attain freedom and democracy.
Don't forget the US and other freedom loving countries are suffering right alongside those people, because we all want freedom to prevail.
I'll take that seriously when you you step forward prepared to do the suffering. Enlist. Sign up as a civilian contractor. Volunteer and go on your own.
Blithely proffering the suffering of others as right and necessary is immoral on the face of it.
As someone who actually lived under socialism, and whose family and friends live in eastern europe i have to tell you, that you're full of sh*t, sir.
I tried to be as civil as i could...
Originally posted by addabox
I'll take that seriously when you you step forward prepared to do the suffering. Enlist. Sign up as a civilian contractor. Volunteer and go on your own.
Blithely proffering the suffering of others as right and necessary is immoral on the face of it.
I hate this retort.
We can't all enlist. If we did we wouldn't have a functioning society anymore. And because one does not undertake a task first hand, does not mean that they cannot see necessity of the undertaking itself.
Originally posted by murbot
Why the fuck did I just watch that.
Holy jesus fucking christ.
I second that thought
Until this prison thing came to light -- and it only did so because of its scandalous nature... Americans love a good scandal -- virtually everything we learned or saw of Iraq on a daily basis, was superficial at best. Window dressing (no matter which way the story in question is being spun).
We are completely isolated from this war geographically, and even more so socially because our courageous leaders refuse to acknolwedge the Americans who are dying every day. We don't know how they die, what they were doing when they died, how many family members they left behind or anything else. What we get, we get from news wires. We're detached from it on an emotional level unless we have people we know personally who are over there.
Not because we don't care on a fundamental level -- I think people do care and do want the war to end generally -- but because most Americans are always too frigging busy to bother with anything that isn't a part of their precious little daily routine. Whether consciously or not, we detach ourselves from the realities of war. And the news media and government only serve to enforce this behavior, rather than work against it. There is no one out there right now, really shoving some hard-hitting stuff in our faces (that has to do with the war itself and how it's being fought, won or lost).
That's why Nightline's show the other night was so useful / gripping, albeit on a somewhat superficial level because of time contstraints. Hell we could fill several days worth of footage and detailed reporting just get people up to current-day status....
Originally posted by addabox
I'll take that seriously when you you step forward prepared to do the suffering. Enlist. Sign up as a civilian contractor. Volunteer and go on your own.
Blithely proffering the suffering of others as right and necessary is immoral on the face of it.
The problem, as I see it, is we (US and coalition nations' people) must be willing to take the casualties.
There any number of ways to suffer and sacrifice, those that you mention are but a few. Suffering and sacrifice can be a good thing in the long run, if for the right reason.
WWII is a testament to that. You think you have it bad under this president?
You could be sig heiling to the Fuhrer, with no opportunity to vote him out of office.
Perspective is a great tool. We should all use it.
Originally posted by progmac
if we would behave in accordance to geneva conventions in the first place, this wouldn't have happen.
That wishful thinking hypothesis is unfounded and countered by the fact that such barbaric acts were carried (and may be carried in the future, alas) independently of whether you behave in accordance or not.
This said, prisoners should be treated with decency indpendently of what the beastly lynching mobs do or not.
If you want to succeed in Iraq (which you ought to since you are already on the ground), which I do, you'd have to put your own organisation in order as well, the horrendous acts of abuse in Abu-Gharib prison indicate an obvious lack of such order.
Note that by acting more appropriately you will not be rewarded by your enemies acting more humanely as well, nor would you gain the sympathy of your political detractors (not even on the AppleOutsider board). Then again if it's sympathy one wants, one should probably move to a real human-made disaster area, like the Soudan.
Originally posted by NaplesX
I amy be wrong, but you sound as if you think that democracy and freedom are not worth suffering or persevering a bit for.
You also seem to think that a tyranny is no better or worse that a democracy. 6 of one half a dozen of the other right?
That may be where some of the tension here is caused. I for one believe that freedom and democracy are dependent on each other, and are worth fighting for or even suffering for.
Struggle makes the reward so much sweeter. No-one wants anyone to suffer, however it has to happen to attain freedom and democracy.
Don't forget the US and other freedom loving countries are suffering right alongside those people, because we all want freedom to prevail.
I sound that way only if you are incapable of thinking beyond on/off, black/white, yes/no, good/evil dichotomies . . .
I said quite clearly that Hussain needed to go . . .I even bolded it because I knew that some, who are either too lazy to read the whole thing or are incapable of believing the world has more shades than two, wouldn't SEE IT otherwise!
My post is about the fact that the Institutions which we have and cherish came about through a long painful history: they only arrived after years of struggle
-(and, dare I say, the humane aspects of which struggle nearly always were motivated by classically 'Liberal' ideas)-
and years of the ever increasing intertwining of institutions: health and safety standards, EPA, police oversite commitees, Rights laws and organizations, anti-descrimination, universal primary education etc etc etc (we still seem incapable of taking some final steps that many civilized countries seem easily to do =universal health care etc)
My post also states that should a country go from Tyrany to "freedom" loving democracy in one fell swoop, without going through the long history of development, it would probably need to have a long-term form of transitional infrastructure akin to socialism (hence China's semi-success transition and Russia's painful quagmire --and also, why the WTO method of universally prying open undeveloped local economies and forcing them into radical Laissez-faire is innapropriate for specific circumstance)
Bush and gang chose Iraq for their great Democracy experiment (Pax Americana) because they saw that it had the institutions in place that might transition well into a secular democracy . . . granted these institutions were the product of a Tyranical form of socialism they existed nonetheless.
What they did wrong was they didn't see that the war would destroy those institutions and also unleash the dormant tribal and religious affiliations beneath the Hussain boot . . . they just didn't look at the reality of the area because they had a 'Vision' to pursue instead!!
It would take a miracle for Iraq to come anywhere near the social stability and benefit that it had under Hussain OUTSIDE of the lack of freedom and brutal oppression . . . it will most likely be replaced with a lack of freedom (due to innumerable things, including severe economic disparities) and brutal oppression of a different sort.
but still Hussain had to go . . . we should have thought about better means to get him out and get the transition going . . . we would have saved lives and not alienated America for the future.
Originally posted by pfflam
I sound that way only if you are incapable of thinking beyond on/off, black/white, yes/no, good/evil dichotomies . . .
I said quite clearly that Hussain needed to go . . .I even bolded it because I knew that some, who are either too lazy to read the whole thing or are incapable of believing the world has more shades than two, wouldn't SEE IT otherwise!
My post is about the fact that the Institutions which we have and cherish came about through a long painful history: they only arrived after years of struggle
-(and, dare I say, the humane aspects of which struggle nearly always were motivated by classically 'Liberal' ideas)-
and years of the ever increasing intertwining of institutions: health and safety standards, EPA, police oversite commitees, Rights laws and organizations, anti-descrimination, universal primary education etc etc etc (we still seem incapable of taking some final steps that many civilized countries seem easily to do =universal health care etc)
My post also states that should a country go from Tyrany to "freedom" loving democracy in one fell swoop, without going through the long history of development, it would probably need to have a long-term form of transitional infrastructure akin to socialism (hence China's semi-success transition and Russia's painful quagmire --and also, why the WTO method of universally prying open undeveloped local economies and forcing them into radical Laissez-faire is innapropriate for specific circumstance)
Bush and gang chose Iraq for their great Democracy experiment (Pax Americana) because they saw that it had the institutions in place that might transition well into a secular democracy . . . granted these institutions were the product of a Tyranical form of socialism they existed nonetheless.
What they did wrong was they didn't see that the war would destroy those institutions and also unleash the dormant tribal and religious affiliations beneath the Hussain boot . . . they just didn't look at the reality of the area because they had a 'Vision' to pursue instead!!
It would take a miracle for Iraq to come anywhere near the social stability and benefit that it had under Hussain OUTSIDE of the lack of freedom and brutal oppression . . . it will most likely be replaced with a lack of freedom (due to innumerable things, including severe economic disparities) and brutal oppression of a different sort.
but still Hussain had to go . . . we should have thought about better means to get him out and get the transition going . . . we would have saved lives and not alienated America for the future.
I agree with a lot of what you are saying, however the part that I object to is how you seem to have declared it a failure, after such a short time. I could be wrong, but that is what I am getting from this and previous posts.
These things will be verified a success or failure long after this present admin is gone. I saw an interview where bush said just that. I think he may being looking further down the road than a lot here in AO and many talking heads in the media.
This is not an overnight "experiment", as would put it.
Originally posted by NaplesX
These things will be verified a success or failure long after this present admin is gone. I saw an interview where bush said just that. I think he may being looking further down the road than a lot here in AO and many talking heads in the media.
a) Bush isn't the one creating policy
b) The situation is already counter to the goals and expectations of the enacted policies as defined in the beginnning by those who created the policies.
and by that I mean ideology in the way that i defined it in another thread: false relationship to real conditions (not just political ideas)
it failed Because of its origins as ideological 'Vision'; The president lied to the American people get it going (Wollfowitz admitted as much) and alienated the rest of our, up till then, sympathetic allies, other countries SEE-RIGHT-THROUGH this, they can see that it is motivated out of some sort of unrealistic 'Vision' at best and/or out of a power and oil grab at the worst
(IMO it is a little of both)
because of its origin as Phantasm it was bound to fail, and has done so, and will do so, and will get worse and worse unless we learn to adjust to the realities (which, unfortunately, is part of what characterizes 'Ideology': it inability to adjust to realities)
BTW another good way of recognizing what I mean by 'Ideology' is when abstract generaliteis, such as "Freedom" become absolute and "Truthful'
and even more telling, when they are thrown around to justify everything as if they are universally understood and universally applicable and yet are never defined and/or even questioned and yet still manage to be the overriding reason for some idea or action.
They become empty signifiers signifying nothing: they show the FALSENESS in the Ideology because they are empty of any real content and yet they are related to reality and attempting to fit reality into its empty image.
Now, of course I love 'Freedom' as much as the next guy: give me a relational definition of freedom, define how it will be instituted and gieve me counter-examles of different ways of interpreting what it meansI will love YOUR idea of it too.
However it is being used here as merely an emblem of 'our-team' vx the 'evil-doers'
(can you believe that the president of the supposedly most advanced country in the whole history of humanity uses terms like 'evil-doers' and 'bad-guys'?!?!?!
its as if he were talking to children!)
Originally posted by NaplesX
The problem, as I see it, is we (US and coalition nations' people) must be willing to take the casualties.
There any number of ways to suffer and sacrifice, those that you mention are but a few. Suffering and sacrifice can be a good thing in the long run, if for the right reason.
WWII is a testament to that. You think you have it bad under this president?
You could be sig heiling to the Fuhrer, with no opportunity to vote him out of office.
Perspective is a great tool. We should all use it.
The problem being that it is not our freedom that is being fought over.
The Iraqi people got no vote on the mechanism of their "liberation". We
are using their country, and to a large extent, their blood, to forward a dubious, untested notion of "spreading democracy".
Which is why I think fans of "blood, sweat and tears", when the vast majority of the bleeding, sweating, and crying is being done by a people most of know next to nothing about beyond our desire for them to be just like us, should be pepared to make some actual sacrifice.
There may well be any number of ways to suffer and sacrifice, have you submited yourself to any of them?
Originally posted by addabox
The problem being that it is not our freedom that is being fought over.
The Iraqi people got no vote on the mechanism of their "liberation". We
are using their country, and to a large extent, their blood, to forward a dubious, untested notion of "spreading democracy".
Which is why I think fans of "blood, sweat and tears", when the vast majority of the bleeding, sweating, and crying is being done by a people most of know next to nothing about beyond our desire for them to be just like us, should be pepared to make some actual sacrifice.
There may well be any number of ways to suffer and sacrifice, have you submited yourself to any of them?
Well said (unlike my sprawling post above)
It gets me thinking about it like this:
Iraqi - "I don't have the Freedom to be be free from your 'Freedom' that you impose on me!"
This was horrific but does anyone seriously believe that the families of innocent men, women and children slaughtered by our hi-tech weapons felt less revulsion?
Killing is gruesome and barbaric.
Bombs, bullets fragmentation devices etc are at least as likely to cause agonising death as what was seen here. We only allow it because we can consider the recipients 'other', because we kid ourselves that the pain we cause is just and because we sanitize out the images of horror with censorship.
We need to see more. It needs to happen less. Not seeing it is not the answer.
Originally posted by giant
Funny, because not even the US military agrees with you.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...insurgency.htm
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2...200403043.html
http://www.cjtf7.army.mil/media-info...eft040127a.htm
So much for that false belief of yours.
They are Iraqis who are remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime. They still represent a tiny majority of the Iraqi population as a whole. And Al Qaeda is backing the insurgency movement. I am not making this stuff up.