Iraqi feelings.

Remove all ads!

I find myself doing the same thing. Getting somewhat pissed when people just do things to serve their own selves.

And then I remember. There's only so much time and resources that are available at any given moment. It's not quite Startrek just yet.

This damn "priority" thing needs to be banned. For all time. Maybe exiled to Australia, like Edward Teach was.

 

Ah! Rush must be sharing these days. I wonder if he ran into the Bush girls while in Rehab.

 

US political system is not actual Democracyand furhtermore no political system is the cure for every nations illness. Different nations-> different ethics and standards->different needs->different solutions, to give a simplified map to what happens in the world.
Allthough we all feel that Democracy is the best given political system for the world, we must not forget that the way to reach this is not one and certainly not a forced one. Every nation takes its course through various experimentations to find what is best for the citizens. By forcing something on a country(even Democracy) is called dictatorship even if it is done with the purest intensions.
More specifically in Iraq US may have entered with the purest intensions (which i seriously doubt) but US forces will always been seen as occupying force no matter how good they will do. They are strangers in a strange land forcing their ways and systems in a foreign population. And not to mention that these people have entirelly different ethics, taboos, way of life than US residents (even the Muslim ones).

 

Yeah, Mithrantir, I was wrong to say "democracy." I should've said "freedom."

I think Jojo sums up the liberal Euro attitude when he says,

That's pretty revealing to me. Who cares if people are being exterminated. We should just let them die and wait for successive generations to free themselves.

I strongly, and most wholeheartedly disagree.

Further, yes, there are other dictators (notably in Africa) that the U.S. hasn't taken out. How, exactly, does that mean that we shouldn't take out one? The "if you can't make the world perfect then don't even try to improve it" attitude is a BS.

So is the "U.S.A. is a bunch of hypocrites" canard. Yeah, we've had schizoid foreign policy. But that doesn't mean we should've left Hussein in power.

 

Well Shralp, you managed to topple a corrupt undemocratic government this weekend without resorting to military means. Look at Georgia, Schereradze (sp?) was toppled through forces inside Georgia in a peaceful way but with a little bit of nudging from the US who had grown tired of his corrupt ways and undemocratic stance. That is the way to deal with unpleasant governments, work through forces within the country and nudge a bit here and a bit there and you get your shift in leadership without being hated by the folks you were trying to help. Now I dont think the US helped out of their goodness of their heart but it is through intelligence and supporting alternatives within that we can and should affect foreign countries, not by leveling the nations ot the ground with our superiour firepower.

My point wasnt that if you cant help all you shouldnt help anyone but that if the US helped Iraq because they wanted to bring freedom to its people and the US wont abide any dictatorial regimes anywhere then they have their work cut out for them. The US dont give a **** about whether the people of country X suffers as long as their regime isnt perceived as somekind of threat or is in any other way in the way. Nor does anyone else by the way. Your hypocritic/blind stance is kinda frustrating though. The US, like everyone else subscribes to the motto you ascribed to Euro liberals as long as the country in question dont bother anyone else or there are some other reason for some greater power to get interested, it is incredibly naive to think otherwise but I guess some people just love their leaders so much and are incapable of see anything wrong with them nor doubt any word that comes from their sacred lips...
No matter how many times they change their stories.

[ November 24, 2003, 16:31: Message edited by: joacqin ]

 

To reiterate (and bring us back on topic):

How does the fact that the US hasn't toppled ALL brutal dictators mean that we shouldn't have taken out this one?

(Oh, Jojo. I was so hoping that your time in the U.S. would help bring some sense to you. )

 

because the US set the standards, like it or not, and those standards keep changing whenever it suits them

which is all fine, just don't expect anyone to like you

 

So it was wrong to get rid of Saddam simply because it was America who said he was bad? Is that really what you're saying?

 

I think we are on topic, but there is something we are missing. Saddam is toppled so it doesnt really matter whether it was right or not. I think it was wrong for reasons which have been listed many many times in may topics here in the alley. You should go through all the stuff you missed in your absence.
My main peeve is that the Iraq war was completely unnescessary from the US's official standpoint, what hidden reasons they have I wont speculate in here. Secondly the extreme hypocrisy people like you buy hook, line and sink Shralp. That you think war was the best solution I can respect but it is hard to not react when you spout the exact same things as your illustrious leaders tell you what to think and say. When they talked about WMD's you and those like you talked about WMD's, when they changed to terror connections you and yours changed your opinion to terror connections and now when they are talking about having brought freedom to the Iraqi people and ended Saddam's rule of terror that is what you speak of as well. I just think it is but scary and sad to see someone so completely devoured by the propaganda and spinmachine of what seems to be in your eyes leaders as infallible as the christian god himself.

 

Yeah, right, Jojo. I'm just a big sheep who can't think for himself. Please. I like how you dodge the topic and mix things I did say with those I didn't.

No, wait. I don't like that at all. Stop it.

The definition of a hypocrite is someone who's winning an argument with a liberal.

 

When the US decided to attack Iraq they were on another job they hadn't finished and that is still unfinished today - getting Bin Laden and crushing Al Quaeda.

One of the big concerns old Europe had for Bush was: "What if your rosy scenario of a happy liberation doesn't work?" Looking at this today these sissy concerns were justified.
It was a stupid idea to invade Iraq to topple Saddam for the ideological dream that this might induce change in the middle east, and actually the repetition of a plan that already failed the first time it was tried: when the israelis (under Sharon's lead) in 1982 invaded Lebanon, aiming on regime change in Damascus.
This shot clearly fired back. And today it isn't much different: Invading Iraq, in the apparent absence of a true threat even now, led away from the war on terror, and instead fuelled anti-US sentiment and induced further terror. Looking at Turkey today Al Quaeda, or franchised islamist terror, seems anything else but dead.

Let's say that invading Iraq didn't contribute to the "war on terror" and instead increased the danger of terrorist attacks to the US. As a result of Iraq the US are today less safe than a year ago. The war also consumed assets that had to be diverted to Iraq from the war on terror.

And morally, yep, nice the beast is gone. In hiding. Their new ruler, Lord Bremer, as well as his yet to be determined iraqi successor, without a doubt a US puppet, sure is nicer than Saddam. And the US troops sure do their best and are much better than Saddam's thugs. Saddam no longer tortures. That's also a nice thing.
But that is how it looks short term. Atm Iraq is anything else but stable and no one knows how it will look in two years and if this progress lasts that long. And there is still the Iraqi civilian deathtoll ... the price *they* pay for their gift of liberation, that aspect of iraqi wellbeing is so important for the US that it isn't even worth counting.

What is won? The US have managed to turn a country that was no terrorist threat into one. They made Iraq a very volatile place.

The US can't show up with much more than this, except for the reparation of some of the war damage - with mostly iraqi funding till now (for US contractors - as if Iraqis weren't able to rebuild their schools by themselves). And when the US manage to kill Saddam? Well, don't expect the Iraqis to fall in love with their occupiers for this glorious deed.
The Iraqis don't want to be occupied. And the US are unlikely to allow full democracy - neither short or long term - fearing an islamic state. Well, if you take Bush by his word of spreading democracy in the Middle East that would ... horrors ... mean to accept the vote of the iraqis - it is *their country* still, or not?

Really, I can't find a particular advantage in attacking Iraq, nor in making it the battleground for an ideological crusade to spread democracy and freedom in the middle east. The actual short term gains are neat, but I ask myself if they are suststainable. That isn't defaitism, I simply don't believe in freedom at gunpoint, I feel that most people reject such a gift.

 

For my argumentation I pointed to previous threads, all that can be said has already been said, more than once even. I didnt feel like repeat the same things once again.

I know you can think for yourself Shralp, you are a highly intelligent person, that is why it is both sad and scary to see your stance mirror completely that of your regime and your words changing when theirs change. Just give that a thought.

 

So on the one hand you say that no one can know what Iraq will be like in the future, and on the other you say we've turned it into a terrorist threat. Which is it? Your idea that that Iraq was not volatile before is simply nonsense. I don't know how in the world you can think it was nice and safe and no threat to anyone until the big bad Yankees came in. But at least you admitted the positive aspects of the invasion. Do you realize that this long after WW2 people like you were still claiming that the US was "losing the peace" in its efforts to rebuild Europe? I'd think that knowledge would lead you to be more patient instead of rushing to condemn everything the stupid Yankees are doing.

Yeah, Jo-mama, I think for myself. I don't know what statements of mine you're referring to, but I assure you that none of my stances have changed. I still maintain that Hussein was a threat to the U.S., collaborating with other Arab terrorists, and that getting rid of him was the right thing to do both for the rest of the world and for the Iraqis.

 

Shralp wrote:

Which freedom are you referring to?


- Perhaps Freedom of the press?

USA is listed in 31st place in the world press freedom ranking according to Reporters without frontiers.

There is also a special note added:

- Perhaps it has to do with prisoners?

(http://mediastudy.com/articles/incarceration.html)

(http://www.charleston.net/stories/060103/wor_01jailbirds.shtml)


- Perhaps freedom has something to do with a low risk of violent death to children?

(http://www.geocities.com/gregskables/archive/2002y.html)


- Freedom of movement?

Entering America, sheathed in protection


Need I go on?
The attempted renaming of french fries to freedom fries is not only pathetic but truly ironic when you realize how "free" USA is.

 

LOL.

Reporters without Frontier's (a French organization) criteria is dubious at best. And I fail to see how jailing criminals means the country is not free.

As for the anecdote of "Homeland Security Forces," I work for the Department of Homeland Security, and I know of no such forces.

I know you were just looking for the opportunity to spout out some anti-American stats you picked up, but the point of my statement was the freedom is a HUMAN value, not an American one. So even if your claims were true, you'd only be proving my point.

[edit] Oh, my. I just read that last link you cited. That guy is insane. Do you know that threats like laptop bombs are actually being made all the time? He pretends like Canada is wonderful because they don't search people entering, but that's exactly why we have to seach people. ***** and whine about freedom all you want, but I'd rather have people x-raying all my luggage than have another terrorist attack.

[ November 25, 2003, 18:19: Message edited by: Shralp ]

 

Has having the highest number of prisoners per capita in the world made your cities safer? I think this is directly related to the concept of freedom.

I don't consider them anti-american. The purpose was to point out that USA is not a beacon of freedom and that is something we ought to be aware of.

I think you exaggerate.
It was a funny story.

Yeah, that is freedom!

 

Actually, it is. I have the freedom not to use commercial travel carriers. If I decide to, I can rest assured that I'll be safe in doing so. Maybe you'd think yourself more free if you were able to travel without inspection but with the possibility of a bomb on the plane, but I don't.

And yes, having criminals in prison has indeed made our cities safer. Yours are climbing. Ours are falling.

 

Shralp i am sorry but this is not so plenty as a gift in our days either not only in USA but everywhere on this world thanks to the US efforts,

Are you claiming that you are a free person, living in a free country? Well you lucky guy because i after 9/11 i am experiencing a continuous diminishing of my personal freedoms and rights (which of course define the limits of my freedom). And you are experiencing this so much wanted freedom? I envy you
Come on Sharlp we are all under surveillance 24/7. You know very well what Echelon is you know very well that technology today can help them even define what you ate the day before you went to the toilet from your products there and so on.
Now if you tell me that because you don't want trouble you take care not to step on any toes or break any law, well my friend you live in a golden cage (as Floyd have said) and you are happy to be free in your cosy well protected from outsiders and maybe too well shutted off from the outside resentful and evil world.

 

Actually, I do know about Echelon. Wrote about it here, IIRC. And it has nothing to do with your toilet.

Anyway, we're way off topic here, so until someone can add something new to the topic, I'm outta here.