Iraq: Looks like we're losing, and we're trying to keep the press from reporting it

A bit busy here at work but will join this debate later this evening.

All I can say at this point is..............

....you all can't understand why the rest of the non-Western world hates our guts.

Chr*st some of you are arrogant and stupid.

I am not a pacifist, far from it, and not a liberal, even further from it, but last time I checked the US military was supposed to be defending our citizens, borders, and interests NOT WHOLESALING US DEMOCRACY TO COUNTIES THAT AREN'T EVEN WILLING TO FIGHT FOR THEIR OWN FREEDOM!!!

Where did you all get the idea that freedom and democracy is something we can just sell to folks all over the world.

.........uh....yes sir you're looking to buy some Freedom and democracy.....

...that'll be on the third floor, isle 7 right next to the linen and bed sheets!!!!!

Some of you need to get f*ckin grip on Muslim culture.

Freedom and Democracy is an institution that evolved over thousands of years. You don't just hand some third world culture a US civics textbook and say here this is how it's done just follow the instructions!!!!!!!

Look at all the freedoms we enjoy today in the US. Half the freedoms we enoy today didn't exist 100 years ago despite the framers terrific work on the Constitution. Freedom evolves over time not three months.

Look at all the former British and French colonies that both Britian and France gave independance too in the 50's and 60's. More than half of them have had multiple dictatorships, bloody coups, and ultimately failed at Democracy.

Sure there are a couple of success stories (if you can call India a true free society) but many more failures.

Even countries that we consider Western powers with freedom and Democracy like South Korea have had bloody transfers of power in the past 25 years and some of you think we can just go into Iraq and create a Democracy in a few years.

Do you guys have any f*ckin clue how f*cked up these countries are? Reminds me of Russia and East Germany. The West Germans had no idea how screwed up the East was. There was all this talk of unification and how everything would be rosy in a year or two. Just chop down the wall, convert the East German currency at a 1:1 rate with the Deutsch Mark and everyone will be hugs and kisses.

Well it's over 10 years later and there is still 20-30% unemplyment in the East and a great deal of hate and resentment on both sides.

And compared to Middle Eastern countries East Germany looked like a picnic.


Will chime in with more later.

Regards,

Jon P. Kofod

 

The modern world I am refering to is the free world. A government that oppresses it own people is not part of the free world. The values we are
trying to instill are the same ones all people of free nations practice.

To respond to your staement

"And you can help people without destroying what they know. I've built homes for the homeless, and been involved in medical help programs in third world countries. I didn't have to smash anyone's house or tell them that their way of life was bad in order to give them some food or meds."

you are quite right and in many other instances that is exactly what we do. Not every problem in the world can be sovled by a handshake and a smile. Sometimes military force is required. Yes revolutions have happended in the past but I would like you to explain to me how the people of Iraq were suppose to rise up against the military power of Sadams regime. I suppose they could have just thrown rocks! I might also remind you that we were sending aid to Iraq as you have suggested but it did not get to the people that needed it, it ended up in Sadams palaces. Believe me I do understand what you are saying but I don't think you understand that force is sometimes the only way. I think you are just like Art and think we should just bury our heads in the sand and hope these kind of rigimes will suddenly decide to do the right thing out of the goodness of thier heart.

 

I’m afraid that for those of you on this board that think we will “win” in Iraq you will be disappointed.

And I’m not sure what the definition for ‘winning” is. There are those who would say “winning” is turning Iraq into a free democratic country. Yet, if we allow them to hold elections, they would certainly choose an extreme Shiite government based on the Iranian model. Therefore, we will not allow them to be truly democratic.

I feel this situation in Iraq is almost exactly following our Vietnam experience. We will continue to try to stop the attacks and they will continue to attack. We will continue to loose more and more men and women. If GWB loses the election, the next Democratic President will not want to look like a wimp and send even more troops (with the help of the draft).

We are set up for failure. We cannot remain an occupier in a foreign country.

We will spend hundreds of billions of dollars and loose thousands of lives and ultimately be kicked out.

Airbarton, democracy is only one form of government. It has its good points and bad points (wild swings every 4 years from liberal to conservative). Having a king or president for life in some parts of the world is not necessarily a bad thing.

I hope I’m wrong, but I see NO scenario for this situation in Iraq turning out to be anything but a humiliating failure for the citizens of the USA.

Bob

 

95F355c, no one is saying we can create a democracy in Iraq in a couple of years. We do have to start somewhere though. The first step is to get them in a position were they can sort it out for themselves. They certainly were not going to be able to do that as long as Sadam and his thugs were around. I suppose the alternative is to just sit back and ignore what is going on over there and hope these people will decide to do it on thier own. We might even get lucky and they may do it before someone over there developes the ability to bring even worse death and destruction to our shores than what happened in New York!

 

Rcallahan, I am well aware of the fact that there are other forms of government. I might point out that most of the governments with kings and lifetime presidents are also democracies. I don't think anyone here would disagree that we all have a basic human right to self determination. I am not against any form of government that understands that philosophy. This is not about the rest of the world doing it our way. It is about the rest of the world embracing basic human rights!

 

Charles,

I do not mean to debase you, but I get the feeling that the premise of your arguments is based on what you see on a more superficial and exterior level.

I think the key to understanding the problem here, which I feel some others have done (including, I will very certainly say, more conservative folks like Dave whose opinion I argue with in some aspects but respect and out of respect) is to look at the issue at far more fundamental levels.

You speak of what happened in New York - well, let's ask Jon, who I feel has a good grip on things. WHY do these countries dislike us so much? If you simply say 'becuase of our way of life' or some flimsy trite statement, then I hope you do so only because you don't want to argue. If you honestly believe that, then having a discussion with you is almost pointless because you won't understand.

Furthermore, you had mentioned that you don't care what our actions and interests are so long as they achieve a noble end? First off, the statement is contradictory by nature. If we have a less than admirable intention and cause for action, how can the result be noble? Look it up in the dictionary. Beyond that, I still ask you to show me ONE such action around the world in the past 50 years we instigated that is representative of such noble ends. Honestly, while I wish there were one, I can't come up with it which is why I'm asking you.

And no one called you dumb. I take offense to the inference that I did so. I think I have treated everyone in discussion with respect. If you call yourself so, it is only because YOU gave yourself that characteristic, for it was not I.

By the way, for all of the ill Saddam might have done, everyone I have spoken to who has been there in the past 10 or 15 years (including a british pilot who has hopped around that region for the past 20 years before retiring, members of armed forces including those who served in the gulf war, businessfolk, and people who visit) - the general concensus seems to be that Iraqis under Saddam were living under considerably better conditions than they are now. WHile his outwardly attitude towards other countries was deplorable, his abuse of his people was not nearly as bad as it is made out to be. I'm not saying he didn't, but there have been FAR worse dictators in countries that receive much less media attention.

If you pay attention to what we're syaing, NO ONE here is calling for inaction. While I agree that we *never* should have meddled in the affairs abroad (and Jon, I know, vehemently agrees with this), the very nature of our involvement (political coups, our self-interests, etc) and the long storied past of doing it, especially in the last 50 years, completely prevents us from just 'pulling out' so to speak.

Instead, I think most everyone is calling for radically different forms of action. If you consider firing a patriot missile as the only form of action, I have to ask: are you a defense contractor?

--Dan

 

Charles,

You speak of basic right of self determination and suggest that those rights are granted under other dictator-led democracies? When was the last time you left this country? In Spain, Germany, Egypt, Morocco, France, even the UK - the basic rights of people with respect to free speech, etc. are limited in a societal manner as opposed to here. Those places are considered 'free' countries with an open exchange of ideas.

So by the first measure, you are incorrect that these places do allow such rights. While some are considerably better than others (France is a more open society than we give it credit for - moreso I dare say than the UK. Germany is pretty good too, but some things are very taboo still), it is still not a correct statement.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is this: how do you translate a society into one that has those basic rights you speak of? More importantly, WHAT are those basic rights? It's probably best to establish that first.

You said that 'at least it's a start' with reference to our invasion of Iraq. Ok, it's a start - to what end? And right now that start has made things worse for everyone, so was it really that productive? Especially if we can't see things through to completion? If we have to pull out early to cut our own losses, have we done more harm than good? I suspect the former. So what has then come to fruition: everyone lost. The people we fuked over are now sitting in a pile of **** (Afghanistan is a perfect example - and how soon we have forgotten too...where is the nobility of action there? How better off are those people?), and we drained ourselves economically. But fear not, Halliburton, Boeing, Lockheed and Bechtel all made out handsomely, which I'm sure provided jobs, salary and spending for enough people in this country to make up for it, right?

--Dan

 

Charles,

I just re-read your post, and I think you should be clear about one thing. There have been NO, zero, Nada, nil, zippo, 0 direct links to 9/11 with Iraq. So your statement about hoping they sort it all out before they develop the means to attack us again is completely uncalled for and only highlights your confusion about the matter.

--Dan

 

"The rest of the world gets it. The conservatives will have to be shown. Remember, they've been wrong from the jump: No weapons of mass destruction, no flowers in the street, no easy occupation, no oil exports to pay for this, and the list goes on, and on."

Art.....

Wrong.....the ROW is merely unwilling and more or less unable to police itself, let alone anything else that goes wrong on the globe......the ROW also, in most cases, is vastly anti-US to begin with.....so to quote Ann Coulter......"They hate us already". Like you expected the sympathy fest for America to continue on September 12th ? Not likely.

No one here could have suggested that it would have been any different, if you simply look at history itself. And for that matter.....NOT ONE of the 9 dwarves has anything to say on the subject that is of substance.

The last few wars the US was involved in took YEARS to end and they experienced then what they are experiencing now in the war on terrorism....not a few MONTHS like Democrats believe it should take.

It's merely wishful thinking, from people who have never had a plan except to surrender.......and it's also coming from people who accept the UN as the be all and end all in matters such as these, which in itself is terrifying to say the least.

The American people can see this and are not stupid, they can also see "who" is hoping for "what" to happen which is why GWB will get re-elected by a reasonable margin in 2004.

I for one, fully expect the shrill whining in my left ear to accelerate in volume and quantity like a jet engine on the run up to take off in the next 10 or so months............whereupon the Democrats will run out of gas before the end of the runway.

 

Art, when millions of people allow their country to be taken over and controlled by a dictator, or are too chicken to overthrow him, isn't that "self determination". Don't the citizens of a country have the right to chose a repressive leader ? I say let them chose who they want as their leader even if they select a dictator and that we don't agree with ..

 

Kds: Quoting Ann Coulter's statement is silly here. Ok, they hate us. WHY? BECAUSE WE FUK THEIR **** UP FIRST. Everytime I hear somoene make that statement, I really wonder if they've looked at the reasons behind it.

--Dan

 

I meant to add:

"they are vastly anti-US to begin with" - no, when this country was founded I'd say most of them didn't know or care, except the british royalty. So you're incorrect. Only after years of our own actions have they come to dislike us so much.

--Dan

 

bobafett.....

In the last 25+ years anti-US sentiment has grown dramatically within Europe and especially from the Arabs worldwide.....witness the numerous attacks over the last 20 years for example from Islamic terrorists as merely one example, or the numerous European protests against pretty much any and all US policies in the last 25 years. I'd say that the US has a demontratbly (spelling ?) better record of helping rather than hindering.

I'd sure like to know how the US earned and or deserved that............it's a question that I think anyone could have trouble with trying to answer logically.

The Dem's seem to think it happened overnight once when GWB was elected.....which is patently a load of you know what. No offense intended, and I am sure you took none.......it's just my outside viewpoint.

 

I'm not bringing up GWB's election or him at all - I'm talking about US recent (50 years) US History. As Art put it, the countries we've gone into and the things we've done there, both in the political and less-obvious side of things, are the reasons such anti-US sentiment is festering all over.

You still fail to answer, even in a lighter sense, the basic question of WHY. I'm not looking for a complicated answer analyzing every turn of event for the past 50 years...what I'm saying is that simply stating that there has been increased anti-US sentiment doesn't do anything to help us understand WHY it exists and WHY it has been increasing.

--Dan

 

Bobafett, before you chastize me you should make sure you know what I said. Here it is "I just don't care what thier reasons are as long as it achieves a noble end." All you need to do is go back to the post and you can see for yourself. I did not say the means was unimportant. I believe there is is a time and place for everything. Sometimes military force is needed and sometimes it is not. This just happens to be one of the times it is. Also don't even try that rediculus arguement that things are worse now in Iraq than they were before. Evidently you have not been paying attention. Even if your statement were true the fact is things generally do get worse before they get better in these situations. I suppose we should just see if the people of Iraq want Sadam back. I would bet the majority would say no way!

As far as my personal knowledge of the rest of the free world is concerened I have traveled extensively throughout europe and Asia and am quite familiar with how life is in those countries. There is absolutely no comparison what so ever between the non democracies you are refering to and countries like Iraq. Even though those countries do not enjoy the level of freedom we do here they are still a far cry from the oppressive situation that some countries in the Arab world live under. I would suggest you pay closer attention to what I say in the future so that you can quote me correctly.

For the record, I was some what opposed to this war at first. I, like some others on this board, thought there must be a better way. I came to realize that people like Sadam and his followers will never get it. I also never believed there was a connection between him and the people that hit the trade center. To me the trade center was a wake up call. It madde me realize that we were vunerable and that we need to start taking our ememies seriously. Taking Sadam out is not about any connections to terrorism. His regime was a threat in its own right. I can't imagine anyone at this point thinking that Sadam was going to stop trying to find a way to get us. So what if we have not found any WMD. That does not mean they were not there, and it does not mean he was'nt looking for a way to get us.

The bottom line has not changed, the world is a better place without him in power. Everyone, including myself, that is envolved in this disscusion are just speculating as to the outcome of this whole thing. We will not know until after the fact how this will all play out. Rather than continue to slam GW for this why not suggest an alternate plan. I for one would be quite interested in hearing how you would solve this problem.

 

Charles,

Your statement said that you do not care about the intention so long as it achieves a noble end. To me, that suggested that the means of doing os are equally irrelevant (if you don't care about why they are going in there, you don't care about how they are doing it too). It did not seem that you had made a distinction, because the two are highly interrelated.

What haven't I been paying attention to? Are you saying that the Iraqis are doing better now? I don't think that's what you're saying. Oh, they'll be doing better later on? Shall we ask the Afghanis the same thing? Or let's ask those in Vietnam, as it's been a hell of a lot longer. When and how DID things get better, if they did. I'm going to speak to some Vietnamese individuals now to get their perspective, so I'll get back to you on that one.

Again, you misunderstood what I was saying. I did not make a comparison to France or whatever and Iraq for personal freedoms, I simply said that it is highly unlikely that those people will enjoy the freedoms we do, and the manner in which we are delivering them the means is even less condusive to that end. And as for whether things are so oppressive: go there and ask those people. I've been to a whole host of countries over there, and yes, while most are brainwashed into what they feel are their rights as opposed to what I feel their rights are a) not all of the countries are like that (the UAE comes to mind), and b) I'm not sure those people will either embrace or be able to live with such changes. THey are EXTREMELY set in their ways, and forcing it on them cold-turkey really doesn't seem to be the answer.

I haven't ever heard of Saddam Hussein attacking the US. I agree he could potentially be a problem (why do you keep making incorrect suggestions about what I infer? - not once have I said I support him or his regime), he is clearly low on the list as opposed to others around the world. North Korea ring a bell? Dramatically more explosive (well, I hope not in a literal sense). But the fact remains that Saddam has never once attacked or even suggested an attack on the US. His own neighboring countries are a different matter. And when did we go in? When our own interests were at stake...back again to this country's modus operandi with meddling in the affairs of others.

I ask you to show me one post I have made where I slammed GWB in this thread. Not ONCE have I even mentioned him. So I respectfully ask again, please do not incorrectly suggest that I have made certain inferences when in reality I have not. If you're asking me what I think we should do now? I don't have an answer for you. As a member of this country I have been lied to by my president so often, I don't even know what the hell is really going on - I can only go by what I see and hear.

But if you're asking me whether I would have gone in and attacked in the first place? Nope. But then I'm not Riley Bechtel or Dick Cheney, so I don't have any personal interest at stake.

--Dan

 

Charles,

I have just re-read this thread, and it seems to me that either you are not understanding what it is I am trying to convey (which could be my own fault), or you are not reading my posts in full.

Either way, without making an appropriate response to my previous statements and questions, I'm not sure how this discussion can continue.

Sorry Art for getting on a tangent.

--Dan