The problem with Iraq is that it is simply not feasible as a country.
You can blame the British for this. They decided, following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, it would be 'convenient' to draw some straight lines around a geographical area and install a puppet (Sunni) regime to govern over the various tribes. Of course, these tribes didn't particularly like being dictated to, and rose up (Churchill gassed them).
Unfortunately, today, the same boundary exists, and the same tribes still rub uncomfortably along beside one another in a ludicrous colonial construction.
Let's look at the three major groups, and the prospect democracy holds for them.
Kurds - minority. Likely to be ignored and marginalised. Chances of a Kurdish state - zero.
Sunnis - Ditto. Marginalised minority.
Shias - The clear majority, so likely to gain power. Unfortunately, a significant portion of Shias are theocratic, so a likely outcome of the election is... guess what... a theocratic leader. I wonder how that's going to go down in Washington.
Democracy is, in principle, a wonderful philosophy. It just doesn't seem to be all that attractive for Iraqis, if the outcome means that their interests are systematically denied.
David Anderson
· 5 years ago
Well I am glad you read the post. But I dont think you paid much attention to my point. I am not going to argue it, its not worth it, it simply becomes a political point for you Liberal against Conservative. And it is not a political argument. It is a humanitarian one. I dont see how any logical person could call what is happening in Iraq GOOD for Iraqi's their country is in ruins. Bombs are going off daily, people are being sluaughtered, and that is the cost of Freedom? You are a father Rob, this I know. How would you like your daughter being described as the unfortunate collatoral damage of a war you did not ask for. I hope you sleep well at night with your justifications, cause honestly I dont. Yes I believe Saddam was a bad man, but I think we could have gotten rid of him without destroying that country in the process. And I want you to consider this... Do you think the families of the DEAD, see this as a "setback?"
Seth Yantiss
· 5 years ago
I'd love to see the proposition David... How could we have gotten Saddam out without the current problems? Consider that Islamic Radicals came in from all over to dismantle our efforts, and that over 90% of the Iraqi civilians are not opposing us...
Japan and Germany were both heavily war torn after their wars... Both are quite nice now (though, both countries still have some land mines that are found from time to time with tragic results)
Rob
· 5 years ago
I don't think you're looking at it from the right perspective. I don't like the fact that Iraqi's are dying in terror attacks. I don't like it one bit, but what's the alternative? Allowing Saddam's regime to continue to bribe UN officials to get sanctions lifted so he can begin making WMD's again? Allowing him to slaughter the Kurds?
If some people die for this cause...its unfortunate but unavoidable. The problem is that people like you have no stomach for it. You say you're interested in freedom, but at the first sign of struggle you tuck tail and run. Its like you expect the world to be peaceful but aren't willing to see any hardships brought on to accomplish it.
And lets keep in mind who is responsible for these deaths. America did not kill those people, the terrorists did. Yet every time something like this happens the left turns toward America and asks "why?" Maybe you should be directing that question at the enemy.
Rob
· 5 years ago
You know what really amazes me David is that there are a lot of very good things happening in Iraq. Hospitals are opening, schools are opening. The things that make up day-to-day life are getting better, yet all you want to focus on is the negative. You ignore all this good news, all this progress, and focus on the unfortunate. Why? I don't know. Personally, I think its because you aren't level-headed enough to take a step back from your partisanship and see the whole situation for what it is, which is more than a political talking point to be used to bash your opposition.
But of course, you don't want to talk about any of this because we conservatives are just too obtuse to comprehend your pessimistic views, if your first comment tells us anything. We're not smart enough to understand that that fighting for what's right is only ok as long as nobody gets hurt.
Seth Yantiss
· 5 years ago
David,
Again, I ask... What could have been done that was better?
Did you think it was okay for Saddam to have killed all of the people he killed? or is that also an injustice? If you have a maniac who has killed people, do you think it's okay to kill the maniac?
David Anderson
· 5 years ago
Okay, first off, that last comment is just plain stupid. Americans have killed hundreds of Iraqi's including women and children. And dont tell me what I dont have the stomach for. I was all for Invading Afghanistan and kicking the Taliban's ass. The question which you refuse to answer is HOW are the Iraqis better off. When does it reach the point where this war has killed more Innocent Iraqis than Saddam. And where the hell is Seth getting his Math? Have you polled every Iraqi to ask them their opinion Seth? I dont think so. And there are more forms of opposition than armed oppossition. You guys must still be buying the flowers and candy koolaide. That moment passed the moment the US lost control of wide swathes of the country to terrorist. Fallujah is blown into dust, and the terrorist blow up police stations in Baghdad, you call that progress?
David Anderson
· 5 years ago
Yeah I do, so when do we kill the one In Korea, or the one in Suddan, or Libya, shall I go on. Rob, answer my question. Do you Honestly believe that the Iraqi's are happier today.
Rob
· 5 years ago
David, go back and read the comments again. In my second comment above you'll see a link to plenty of good being done in Iraq.
As for your assertion that Americans have killed innocent Iraqi's...you have to look at intent. Use your head a bit. What were the circumstances of their deaths? Realize that the enemy we are fighting uses women and children as humans shields. How can we fight an enemy like that and avoid civilian casualties?
Rob
· 5 years ago
You could make an argument for going to war with Korea or some of these other places first and I'd listen to it, but in the end I think you're just exchanging one threat for another.
The way I see it, we had to go to Afghanistan after 9/11. You yourself don't question that David. So, since we're in the region anyway, why not take another threat off the list while we're there? A threat that ignored dozens of UN resolutions. A threat that was bribing UN officials. A threat that was giving us every reason to believe that he had weapons of mass destruction. That makes sense to me.
As to whether or not the Iraqis are happier right now, I think it depends on which Iraqi's you're asking. The Iraqi's who had it good under Saddam are probably upset, but I know for a fact that the Kurds are ecstatic that Saddam is gone. Like any country there's going to be a varriance in opinion. I do know, however, that if we see this battle out in Iraq the Iraqis will find freedom and they will be happier, even if times are dark for some of them now.
Seth Yantiss
· 5 years ago
David,
You bypass the question AGAIN!
What plan would have rooted Saddam and left less civilians dead?
Certainly just as many would have died under Saddam... Given the bodies in the mass graves, he killed an average of 10,000 + per year.
What could have been done, David? Please, tell me!
kes
· 5 years ago
Stupid. Shouldnt be there and should just go . Saddams gone, so let them do what they want. We did their dirty work, now they can fix their own country fercrissakes. I for one am sick of sacrificing for others while this country goes down the toilet.
Seth Yantiss
· 5 years ago
That would be a BAD idea, Kes...
It's never easy to take the moral high ground, as Christ knew too well.
Before David starts, yes, we have done bad things around the world. We screwed up by installing Saddam. We did a bad thing in Bosnia... (and are still there)... But we have done a GREAT deal of good throughout the world. We give aid to ANYONE suffering from natural disasters. We have liberated countries and set an example with the worlds longest running constitutional representative republic (notice I did not say democracy). We have countless things to be proud of, and several things to be ashamed of. It's not a perfect track record, but it's pretty darn good, overall. I'd be proud if this was my parenting record...
David Anderson
· 5 years ago
I have not said a single word about our record. I am not a communist or self hating American. Seth you must have missed the news reports that said Saddam had been negotiating with several countries for assylum before the invassion. But whatever. I did not come here to argue this. I simply dont believe it is logical to think that Iraqis are happy with terrorist running arround their country kidnapping and killing and setting off bombs, or with their major cities being bombed into oblivion for the sake of a Democracy they dont even understand and never asked for.
Tom
· 5 years ago
kes,
America has a long standing tradition of sacrificing for the benefit of people far from our home. No country's flag has been at the head of more liberating armies in the history of the world. If we were to turn tail and run now, do you honestly think that another Saddam wouldn't take over? That old saying "Those who don't know history are comdemned to repeat it" needs an addition. Those who don't have the guts to finish the job are condemned to let history repeat itself. We need to give the Iraqi people the best possible chance of success. It is in everyone's interest.
Seth Yantiss
· 5 years ago
David,
Many Iraqi's did ask for it. Many were hesitant to ask for anything considering our pull out from Desert Storm. We failed to finish the job then which cost numerous lives and left many Iraqi's bitter toward the US (AKA: us).
Saddam had a history of saying one thing then doing another. 12 years of it, from the first UN resolutions.
To say that you didn't come here to debate the point is such a candy-assed comment. Your whole philosophy seems to be based upon shoot and run.
You say that what we are doing in Iraq is as bad as Saddam for the Iraqi's, but then won't offer a better solution. When pressed, you say "I don't want to argue"... Come on... This is such a typical liberal response... I just want to feel bad about it, but don't ask me to be intellectual... that requires something other than FEELINGS. You are more than willing to point out the problems, but won't help with the solution. Any good business man would have fired you for this insulting bit of analysis.
I almost expect you to say something like "I didn't mean to start a debate... sorry"
I am sure your next post, if there is one, will be something along the lines of... "I'm not going to talk to you anymore"... WHAAAAAA
As for the rest of the post:
I have not said a single word about our record. I am not a communist or self hating American.
Then are you DAFT? Or do you think that every good thing can not come if there is a price? There were many like you during OUR civil war. MANY, MANY, MANY of the original colonists didn't want to fight for our independence... Hindsight is always 20/10, but if you were there, at the time, you would have vocalized dissent toward the idea of liberty.
Seth you must have missed the news reports that said Saddam had been negotiating with several countries for assylum before the invassion.
Nope, I didn't miss the news reports, I just didn't believe them... did you happen to catch Baghdad Bob, stating that there were no American forces in Iraq? Would it be possible that in the 2 years leading up to the invasion, Saddam might have had a chance to change his heart? Yup!!! We processed 2 additional resolutions prior to the invasion. Saddam had more than enough time to comply, get out, die... whatever, but he didn't. He was able to ship lots and lots of stuff across the boarders, but I guess he didn't have time to get himself on a truck or plane...
But whatever. I did not come here to argue this. I simply dont believe it is logical to think that Iraqis are happy with terrorist running arround their country kidnapping and killing and setting off bombs, or with their major cities being bombed into oblivion for the sake of a Democracy they dont even understand and never asked for.
Of course this isn't a good thing... but we didn't ASK the terrorist slime to come into Iraq... The came there of their own volition from other countries. They (the Terrorist Ideologues) do not want to allow freedom. Al Jazerra and other controlled sources of public information dissemination tell these people that freedom = immorality. They show them Jerry Springer and say "look... this is America thanks to freedom." What they need is education. What we're providing them is a chance. To stay like they are is to stagnate. Over 25% of the worlds oil is in that region. Yet, they still live in abject poverty... Why do you suppose that is? The US imposing our will on them to keep them down? NO... They are there because of controlled education.
Any time you wish to debate... let me know... if you want to cut and run, I'll call you a ‘girley man' and move along.
David Anderson
· 5 years ago
LOL! Calling someone like me girly man is like calling Hugh Hefner Gay, go for it. Anyway, thought you might want to read this.
So David, has the CIA suddenly become omniscient? Last time I checked everyone on the Left was decrying their absolute incompetence re: Iraq.
btw, congrats on the apparent libido.
Seth Yantiss
· 5 years ago
DOH !!! I forgot to mention that all of this bad news is from before the Afghanistan elections... I didn't put any DATE criteria in the google search... just "Afghanistan Deteriorating". And everything that came back was pre election. Go figure... You'd almost thing the NY Times was working with the Terrorists... Hmmmmmmmmm....
slarrow
· 5 years ago
I read the report you mentioned, David. I rather prefer ScrappleFace's take on it. It gets to the real heart of the issue rather nicely. A good satirist is useful that way.
Seth Yantiss
· 5 years ago
David,
The NY Times is not a credible source of news... be that as it may... I recall several articles that said the same thing about Afghanistan...
And this was just the first page on my google search...
Fear is the new tact of the media and the left. They scare you into buying their news... Notice how little good news from Iraq makes it to the news papers?
I take it from your lack of response that you have no ideas that would have resulted in Saddam's ouster, while sparing more lives...
All Comments
You can blame the British for this. They decided, following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, it would be 'convenient' to draw some straight lines around a geographical area and install a puppet (Sunni) regime to govern over the various tribes. Of course, these tribes didn't particularly like being dictated to, and rose up (Churchill gassed them).
Unfortunately, today, the same boundary exists, and the same tribes still rub uncomfortably along beside one another in a ludicrous colonial construction.
Let's look at the three major groups, and the prospect democracy holds for them.
Kurds - minority. Likely to be ignored and marginalised. Chances of a Kurdish state - zero.
Sunnis - Ditto. Marginalised minority.
Shias - The clear majority, so likely to gain power. Unfortunately, a significant portion of Shias are theocratic, so a likely outcome of the election is... guess what... a theocratic leader. I wonder how that's going to go down in Washington.
Democracy is, in principle, a wonderful philosophy. It just doesn't seem to be all that attractive for Iraqis, if the outcome means that their interests are systematically denied.
I am not going to argue it, its not worth it, it simply becomes a political point for you Liberal against Conservative. And it is not a political argument. It is a humanitarian one.
I dont see how any logical person could call what is happening in Iraq GOOD for Iraqi's their country is in ruins. Bombs are going off daily, people are being sluaughtered, and that is the cost of Freedom?
You are a father Rob, this I know. How would you like your daughter being described as the unfortunate collatoral damage of a war you did not ask for.
I hope you sleep well at night with your justifications, cause honestly I dont.
Yes I believe Saddam was a bad man, but I think we could have gotten rid of him without destroying that country in the process.
And I want you to consider this... Do you think the families of the DEAD, see this as a "setback?"
Japan and Germany were both heavily war torn after their wars... Both are quite nice now (though, both countries still have some land mines that are found from time to time with tragic results)
If some people die for this cause...its unfortunate but unavoidable. The problem is that people like you have no stomach for it. You say you're interested in freedom, but at the first sign of struggle you tuck tail and run. Its like you expect the world to be peaceful but aren't willing to see any hardships brought on to accomplish it.
And lets keep in mind who is responsible for these deaths. America did not kill those people, the terrorists did. Yet every time something like this happens the left turns toward America and asks "why?" Maybe you should be directing that question at the enemy.
But of course, you don't want to talk about any of this because we conservatives are just too obtuse to comprehend your pessimistic views, if your first comment tells us anything. We're not smart enough to understand that that fighting for what's right is only ok as long as nobody gets hurt.
Again, I ask... What could have been done that was better?
Did you think it was okay for Saddam to have killed all of the people he killed? or is that also an injustice? If you have a maniac who has killed people, do you think it's okay to kill the maniac?
Fallujah is blown into dust, and the terrorist blow up police stations in Baghdad, you call that progress?
As for your assertion that Americans have killed innocent Iraqi's...you have to look at intent. Use your head a bit. What were the circumstances of their deaths? Realize that the enemy we are fighting uses women and children as humans shields. How can we fight an enemy like that and avoid civilian casualties?
The way I see it, we had to go to Afghanistan after 9/11. You yourself don't question that David. So, since we're in the region anyway, why not take another threat off the list while we're there? A threat that ignored dozens of UN resolutions. A threat that was bribing UN officials. A threat that was giving us every reason to believe that he had weapons of mass destruction. That makes sense to me.
As to whether or not the Iraqis are happier right now, I think it depends on which Iraqi's you're asking. The Iraqi's who had it good under Saddam are probably upset, but I know for a fact that the Kurds are ecstatic that Saddam is gone. Like any country there's going to be a varriance in opinion. I do know, however, that if we see this battle out in Iraq the Iraqis will find freedom and they will be happier, even if times are dark for some of them now.
You bypass the question AGAIN!
What plan would have rooted Saddam and left less civilians dead?
Certainly just as many would have died under Saddam... Given the bodies in the mass graves, he killed an average of 10,000 + per year.
What could have been done, David? Please, tell me!
It's never easy to take the moral high ground, as Christ knew too well.
Before David starts, yes, we have done bad things around the world. We screwed up by installing Saddam. We did a bad thing in Bosnia... (and are still there)... But we have done a GREAT deal of good throughout the world. We give aid to ANYONE suffering from natural disasters. We have liberated countries and set an example with the worlds longest running constitutional representative republic (notice I did not say democracy). We have countless things to be proud of, and several things to be ashamed of. It's not a perfect track record, but it's pretty darn good, overall. I'd be proud if this was my parenting record...
America has a long standing tradition of sacrificing for the benefit of people far from our home. No country's flag has been at the head of more liberating armies in the history of the world. If we were to turn tail and run now, do you honestly think that another Saddam wouldn't take over? That old saying "Those who don't know history are comdemned to repeat it" needs an addition. Those who don't have the guts to finish the job are condemned to let history repeat itself. We need to give the Iraqi people the best possible chance of success. It is in everyone's interest.
Many Iraqi's did ask for it. Many were hesitant to ask for anything considering our pull out from Desert Storm. We failed to finish the job then which cost numerous lives and left many Iraqi's bitter toward the US (AKA: us).
Saddam had a history of saying one thing then doing another. 12 years of it, from the first UN resolutions.
To say that you didn't come here to debate the point is such a candy-assed comment. Your whole philosophy seems to be based upon shoot and run.
You say that what we are doing in Iraq is as bad as Saddam for the Iraqi's, but then won't offer a better solution. When pressed, you say "I don't want to argue"... Come on... This is such a typical liberal response... I just want to feel bad about it, but don't ask me to be intellectual... that requires something other than FEELINGS. You are more than willing to point out the problems, but won't help with the solution. Any good business man would have fired you for this insulting bit of analysis.
I almost expect you to say something like "I didn't mean to start a debate... sorry"
I am sure your next post, if there is one, will be something along the lines of... "I'm not going to talk to you anymore"... WHAAAAAA
As for the rest of the post:
Then are you DAFT? Or do you think that every good thing can not come if there is a price? There were many like you during OUR civil war. MANY, MANY, MANY of the original colonists didn't want to fight for our independence... Hindsight is always 20/10, but if you were there, at the time, you would have vocalized dissent toward the idea of liberty.
Nope, I didn't miss the news reports, I just didn't believe them... did you happen to catch Baghdad Bob, stating that there were no American forces in Iraq? Would it be possible that in the 2 years leading up to the invasion, Saddam might have had a chance to change his heart? Yup!!! We processed 2 additional resolutions prior to the invasion. Saddam had more than enough time to comply, get out, die... whatever, but he didn't. He was able to ship lots and lots of stuff across the boarders, but I guess he didn't have time to get himself on a truck or plane...
Of course this isn't a good thing... but we didn't ASK the terrorist slime to come into Iraq... The came there of their own volition from other countries. They (the Terrorist Ideologues) do not want to allow freedom. Al Jazerra and other controlled sources of public information dissemination tell these people that freedom = immorality. They show them Jerry Springer and say "look... this is America thanks to freedom." What they need is education. What we're providing them is a chance. To stay like they are is to stagnate. Over 25% of the worlds oil is in that region. Yet, they still live in abject poverty... Why do you suppose that is? The US imposing our will on them to keep them down? NO... They are there because of controlled education.
Any time you wish to debate... let me know... if you want to cut and run, I'll call you a ‘girley man' and move along.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/07/international/middleeast/07intell.html?oref=login&th
btw, congrats on the apparent libido.
The NY Times is not a credible source of news... be that as it may... I recall several articles that said the same thing about Afghanistan...
http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2003/06/tomasky-m-06-18.html
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1993426
http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/deterioratingrapidly.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3139455.stm
http://www.commondreams.org/news2003/0617-01.htm
http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/0/3c8ccfa774930fa5c1256f07002c487a?OpenDocument
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/afghanistan/testimony061803.htm
And this was just the first page on my google search...
Fear is the new tact of the media and the left. They scare you into buying their news... Notice how little good news from Iraq makes it to the news papers?
I take it from your lack of response that you have no ideas that would have resulted in Saddam's ouster, while sparing more lives...