What Has Gone Right In Iraq

[100LL... Again!]

I know you would never believe me, but here's someone with a story:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/2483947

Money Quote:

"While in America, the six men hope to serve as witnesses against Saddam's regime.

"The coalition doesn't need weapons of mass destruction to justify the war," Bassim Al Fadhly says in the documentary. "

This is one of many such stories.

 

[Dubya]

That's a little better.

Ok...now you are getting somewhere. I am a gentleman, thanks for pointing that out! I knew you could do it!

If you think this country would be better off with John Kerry running it...you will be the disappointed one...along with the rest of America. Don't take it from me...go check out his record, please. You think Bush is a liar, man, Kerry is a piece of work.

The word you were looking for is "confrontational"....not confrontive.

W

 

[surplus1]

Re: The Bush Regime

So I really don't see what parallel you're trying to make here. Where is it?

Given what you posted in response, it is evident that you don't see the parallel. I was not comparing the President of the United States to the President of Iraq. Such comparison is not possible and even I know that.

I was comparing the invasion and occupation of one soverign nation by another. The principle is quite basic and has little if anything to do with one's political party affiliation.

The basic tenet of democracy is self-determination. Only the "people" of a particular nation-state have the "right" to remove its government when they do not "like" its policies. There are two methods by which this may be accomplished: 1) Through the ballot, 2) By revolution/ civil war. Both are an internal processes and do not include invasion and occupation by a foreign nation.

One cannot logically subvert democracy as a means by which to install demoracy. That's an oxymoron.

The United States is currently imposing its will upon the people of Iraq by military force and against their collective will.

I do not doubt that the majority of them are satisfied with the fall of Saddam Hussein. That however, is not the point. It is obvious that they are NOT satisfied with the invasion of their country or its occupation by military force. If they were, there would be no resistance, no insurgency. They are not fighting to return Hussein, they are fighting to remove America. All of them are not fighting because all of them can't. Enough are to make it clear that they do not want this occupation and the invaders are not welcom.

If the United States were invaded and occupied by a foreign power, I would hope that we Americans would remember the words of Winston Churchill and act accordingly.

""We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."

We found those words praiseworthy when they were uttered and have virtually enshrined their author. Why is it that we find this acceptable when said by an Englishman, but find it unusual when practiced by and Iraqi? Freedom is a state of mind among a people. It is not a buzz word whose definition may be written or dictated by foreigners.

It may satisfy our egos as Americans to believe that we have "liberated" Iraq and declare them "free". Free from Saddam Hussein they are. Free from us they are not. What is really important is not what we think we have done, it is what the Iraqi people think we have done. They may very well have hated Sadam Hussein (who was everything you've said and more), the problem is they now hate us more.

In 1920 (circa) Great Britain "occupied" a region called Iraq (as a consequence of WWI) which had previously been "occupied" by yet another "foreign" power. Their "occupation" continued until after the second world war. They attempted to establish the British brand of democracy and even empolyed chemical weapons against civilians (cilling them by the thousands) in the effort to subdue the resistance. They were not successful and ultimately abandoned the effort (circa 1947).

In 1948, the British gave up their occupation of Palestine and transferred it to a people who "claimed" it was their's, creating a new nation called "Israel". Ever since, the people who lived there have resisted what they consider to be the "occupation" of their lands by the Zionists. They have resisted that occupation by whatever means is available to them, in the face of vastly superior military power, for 56 years with no end in sight. We now call them "terrorists", just as we call the Iraqi insurgents terrorists.

Again, my point is that what "WE" think about it or what the British think about it is irrelevant. The fact is the occupation continues by military force and it is being resisted.

Are you prepared to keep more than 100,000 American military in Iraq for the next 50 years in an effort to impose our style of life on a people that do not want it? Do you believe that such an effort is going to bring "stability" to the region? Are you satisfied with counting the body-bags of American boys for the next fifty years as a consequence of Bush's application of foreign policy?

You are correct, Bush will be gone no later than 2008. Does that mean that we must endure the consequences of this error for at least that long? Perhaps you are willing or even eager to do so, I am not.

Fortunately for me as an American, I do not have to exercise the option of revolution or civil war to change the policy of my government. All I have to do is exercise the power of the ballot and remove the people who support this policy of preemptive war from office. Hopefully, enough of my fellow citizens will use that option as well.

I support the war against terrorism and I would like to continue that struggle which is supported by the overwhelming majority of the world community. Without that support, we cannot win the war against terrorism regardless of the military might of the United States. However, I have not been duped into believing that the invasion of Iraq is part and parcel of the war against terror. In fact, I think it seriously detracts from the anti-terror effort and may very well exacerbate the use of terrorism against us and others. There is already evidence of that effect.

Our government has unfortunately made the unilateral decision to invade Iraq for the wrong reasons at the wrong time. We would have been perfectly justified in continuing to Baghdad in 1991 and removing Saddam. We had a legitimate reason and the support of the world. We subsequently had the opportunity, twice, to support a revolution by Iraqis, to overthrow Saddam. We chose not to do so under the administration of George the First. Now we are dealing with and effort by his son to correct the errors of the father by making even greater errors in this ill advised invasion.

Contrary to popular opinion, the people of that area of the world do not really hate Americans. What they hate are the policies of the American government which have been inconsistent with the mores of the American people for the last half century. That is not limited to the GWB administration. Ever since we became a "super power" (after WWII) our government has adopted the arrogance of that status. Whether we choose to recognize that or not, a majority of the world's people object strongly to the foreign policy of our government.

The success and power of the United States is NOT lost on the rest of the world and most would like to share in our economic and political successes as well as the technology they have produced. However, they want to do it in their way and they do NOT want to have the will of the US imposed upon them because they fear our military power.

The peoples of these developing nations don't "like" dictators any more than do the peoples of the "advanced" nations. Just like us, they do want to feed and house their people, raise and educated their children, and they do want the right to decide for themselves. To a great extent they don't have that ability because our government supports the dictatorships and sells them the arms used to oppress the people. They rebel against us because our government is the source of their inability to rebel successfully against their own despotic governments.

Sometimes they succeed in spite of what the US Govt. does to prevent it, but most of the time they do not. Occasionally, we do intervene on the side of "good", but for the most part our policy supports the despots, as long as they are willing to do our bidding. This is especially true in countries outside of Europe, a fact also not lost on the peoples of other regions. That is what the radicals are rebelling against. That is the cause of the terrorists.

Everyone doesn't react in the same way to what our government does, but the only part of the world in which the reaction is favorable is western Europe. Why is that? In part because we are doing the same things now that the old European regimes did when they were the "super powers" of their time and, of course, we are not doing it to them. They "understand" it because it is a modern version of their old ways.

The parts of the world that do not understand and do not want it, are the same parts of the world that were the pervious victims of European hegemony. Latin America - Spain, India (including Pakistan) and the Middle East - Great Britain, Indo China and North Africa - France, Indonesia - Holland, etc., etc.

continued

 

[surplus1]

I believe that we will never succeed in stopping the terrorists with guns, bombs, or invasions. We can deter them, but sooner or later they will "get through" again and do more evil. However, I do believe we could reverse the hatred by a meaningful change in our government's foreign policies. To do that successfully we must change our attitude (as a government) and our behavior. Brandishing our military might is not the change to which I refer. If you take a hard look at the Bush policy, that is all that it consists of, i.e., waiving the flag and brandishing/using the military arsenal against weak nations. It is not at all easy to change that for we are still a young nation and many of our people enjoy the machismo associated with the wild west and the latter day Rambo movies. However if we want to we do have the ability to change.

To effect that change we do not need a leader who gets a "kick" out of pretending to land on an aircraft carrier dressed in military rigalia, nor do we need to announce "shock and awe" as though it were a movie or a video game. That doesn't spread democracy, it spreads fear. Fear of irresponsible behavior and the ability to cause mahem wherever we choose.

One day I hope we will have leaders in the White House and high echelons of our government that can see their way to establishing policies that truly are in the long term best interests of our country. Sadly, I don't think the current occupants are doing that, nor do I see them as being capable of doing that. They seem to believe that we can shoot our way out of any problem. Maybe we can, but all that will get is a new problem from a different source. I don't really know if Kerry can be that "leader", but I certainly do know that George II isn't.

 

[TonyC]

100LL says that anyone who disagrees with the President is a moron and a coward...and you tell me I'm the one throwing red herrings out there?

<sigh>

No, he did not. If you'd calm down a bit and try to be objective, maybe you wouldn't feel so guilty, and therefore compelled to retaliate against a perceived threat. Here's what he said:

To repeat:

THE WHOLE D-MN WORLD was sure he had weapons.

Listen you sophists:

If a cop asks you to submit to a breathalyzer and you refuse, they are allowed to assume you were drinking, and you will be penalized to a sometimes greater degree than if you took the test and failed.

Saddam refused to submit to real inspections.

Therefore we are allowed to assume he had them.

Therefore Bush was justified. Besides, it needed doing anyway.

Final score, Bush did the right thing, and you only hate him because in your cowardice you fear that angering these arab nutcases further will disturb your pleasant little life.

Cowards. I bet there is nothing you would be willing to die for.

Now, just how did you twist that to "anyone who disagrees with the President is a moron and a coward"?

I think George W. Bush is a terrible President. In your mind, that invalidates anything I say on this forum, whether it concerns unions, pitch/power, religion, etc. Why don't you put me on your "ignore" list and save us all some bandwidth?

Feeling a little paranoid, are we?

 

[350DRIVER]

THE WHOLE D-MN WORLD was sure he had weapons.

Riiight... That is why the UN and most foreign leaders refused to back this war which I praise their stance as many others do, but wait according to your flawed philosophy the "whole" world was "sure" he had the weapons..?!?


too funny..

3 5 0

 

[TonyC]

THE WHOLE D-MN WORLD was sure he had weapons.

Riiight... That is why the UN and most foreign leaders refused to back this war which I praise their stance as many others do, but wait according to your flawed philosophy the "whole" world was "sure" he had the weapons..?!?


too funny..

3 5 0

That quote was from 3 days ago, and in a post that you've already responded to. What's wrong, did you not find enough to argue with the first time through, or did you just get so mad before you could read the entire post that it didn't settle on your brain?

Gimme a break. Republicans and Democrats alike agreed that Saddam had WMDs, and you cannot prove that he did NOT. Can you?

No, you can't. So why don't you save face and drop it?

 

[350DRIVER]

That quote was from 3 days ago, and in a post that you've already responded to. What's wrong, did you not find enough to argue with the first time through, or did you just get so mad before you could read the entire post that it didn't settle on your brain?

I don't care if it was from six years ago, if you don't want to read the thread then the very simple and elementary solution would be not to click on it. Pretty easy and takes very little effort if any. I will post whenever I feel like it but thanks for your concern. Mad? I get more from laughing at you for trying to stick up for the smuck in office, funny how some buy into the propaganda and enjoy drinking that bitta kool aid.

Gimme a break. Republicans and Democrats alike agreed that Saddam had WMDs, and you cannot prove that he did NOT. Can you?

What cave are you residing in? The above statement was a joke? Riiiiight... To date how many WMD's have been found? Kind of thought so....


3 5 0

 

[TonyC]

Gimme a break. Republicans and Democrats alike agreed that Saddam had WMDs, and you cannot prove that he did NOT. Can you?

What cave are you residing in? The above statement was a joke? Riiiiight... To date how many WMD's have been found? Kind of thought so....


3 5 0

None have been found to date. That proves nothing, other than none have been found to date. It does NOT prove that WMDs did not exist then, and it does NOT prove that WMDs will not be found in the future. Furthermore, if we NEVER find WMDs in Iraq, that will STILL NOT prove that there were NOT WMDs in Iraq. If somebody were to develop a way to physically inspect every inch of real estate SIMULTANEOUSLY from the surface to however deep a cave or trench might have been dug to bury a WMD, we might still never find any WMDs. Again, that will not prove that they did not exist.

By definition, the only case that CAN be proven, is that there ARE WMDs there now - - and the only way that case could be proven would be to find a WMD there now. To restate, if we found a WMD there now, that would prove the existence of WMDs. No other propositions can be proven.

Let's bring this down to an everyday example. You walk into your house (or apartment or hotel room or crahspad or whatever) and absentmindedly set your car keys down somewhere. Hours later, you want to drive somewhere, and you begin looking for your keys. If after searching in vain for 5 minutes you conclude that your car keys are not there, you will have arrived at an incorrect conclusion. They're there, you just haven't found them yet. If after 30 minutes of searching, you still can't find them, you may assume they're not there - - again, wrong assumption. You will never know with certainty where the keys are until you find them, and you can never prove where they are NOT until you find them. Whether you look for 5 minutes or 5 years, your failure to find them does not require, does not PROVE, that they are not there. Perhaps it proves your ineptness at looking for car keys, but that's another subject.

My mother thought she had lost her wedding band over 25 years ago. Searches high and low throughout the house produced nothing but frustration. Vacuum cleaner bags were emptied. Trash cans dumped. Exasperated, we were left to conclude that the band was not in the house. Several years later, as carpet was being replaced, we carefully searched through the old carpet and pad with hopes we might find the long lost wedding band. Still, we came up empty-handed. Did that prove the wedding band was not there? No. It had still not been located. We didn't know WHERE it was, but we couldn't prove that it wasn't in the house. To be sure, we had searched high and low, for literally years, but we could not prove it was not there. A couple of summers ago, we undertook a project to remove the wood paneling from a room, and removed the fiberglass insulation from the wall as well. Guess what she found. You got it - - the wedding band had somehow become trapped in the wall. She had many years previous given up hope on ever finding the band and hand gotten a replacement. But she had never been able to prove that the band was not in the house. In fact, the band HAD BEEN in the house all along - - we just couldn't find it.

You cannot prove that something did not exist. It's impossible. Live with it. If you have proof otherwise, let's hear it.

Until then, NOTHING has been proven with regards to WMDs.

[Edited to fix the vacuum -- thanks Mar! ]

 

[mar]

Tony Rumsfeld is that you?

Tony, Tony, Tony...

There are things we know. And there are things we don't know. And there are things we know we don't know. And there are things we don't know that we don't know...you know?

If the overnight package delivery service ever gets ya down I believe there's a position in the Defense Dept for you.

But more importantly: I have the sincere and tremendous pleasure, my dear friend, of declaring the following:

YOU'RE BUSTED!!

WOO HOO!!!

<Dances a sarcastic little jig while taunting Tony the whole time>

HAH!

I caught you in a spelling error! Am I the first *ever* to correct Tony? Am I? Is there a prize?

Vaccum cleaner bags were emptied.