Jump to content
Baghdadee بغدادي
baghda

Why do the Americans liberate Iraqis and occ

Recommended Posts

George B, I am not ignorant, naive or in self-denial. American Empire? Hilarious. If we are an Empire, pray tell, what nations are we an Empire over? Who, exactly, are the subects of this Empire? How do we weld our Emperial power?

 

My communist friend, if the US is an Empire, why did we honor the will of the democratically elected Turkish parliament and go around Turkey instead of through her at the inception of this war? Did Stalin, Hitler, Napolean, or any of your other jackbooted Impirial heroes ask permission before stomping through their friends? No. Had they asked permission, would they then have honored a negative response? No. Would they then have worked to bring Democratic self-rule? No.

 

Your pretense that history has happened in a vacuum and that bad, evil America has stomped around the world enslaving the free exposes you as the one who is ignorant, naive and in self-denial. You cannot speak of the "truth" and "American Empire" in the same post without exposing yourself further to be a Communist America hater. Why don't you talk about the truth of Communist conquest and number of genocides committed in YOUR name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got this as email from Christopher J.

##########################################

 

Why do the Americans liberate Iraqis and occupy Iraq?

An interesting article by the Iraqi writer Basim Almustaar.

 

I would like to comment on the article by Basim Almustaar, on 'Why do the Americans liberate Iraqis and occupy Iraq?'

 

As an American, I want Mr. Almustaar to understand that for Americans, our world changed completely on September 11, 2001. I see many ME commentators talk about the civilian casualties in Iraq from Coalition actions, and then ask rhetorically, 'how would Americans like it if someone came and bombed them?' The reality is that we in America were bombed, and over 3,000 of us were killed in a single attack, more than in any other single attack in recent history.

 

All Americans now know and understand that Osama bin Laden issued fatwas in 1996, calling for us to be killed, just because we are Americans. We know we are not safe anymore.

 

Because of this, the majority of Americans realize that we must not allow our enemies, those who hate us and want to kill us, to gain strength and plan and prepare their weapons against us. It is true that America is a democracy, and there is a minority of Americans, mostly members of the Democratic Party, led by their politicians like John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean and others, who want America to try to placate and give in to our enemies. Basically, they want us to submit. But these people, thank God, are a minority in this country, and the majority rules in a true democracy.

 

Saddam and the Baathists of Iraq have been open enemies of America since the late 1980's. It is true that America supplied help to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq War, but it is also true that we were helping the Iranians as well. The reality was that both Saddam and the Mullahs in Iran were our enemies and we wanted the Baathists and the Revolutionary Guards to kill each other so they wouldn't kill us. It was a cynical policy, true, but it kept America safer.

 

America would have liked to remove Saddam in 1991, and all Americans were calling for Saddam's head back then, but our 'allies', the French, Turks, Syrians, Saudis, etc, along with the UN, were against it, and because Bush the First wanted to 'cooperate' with other countries and 'work with' the UN, we shamefully stopped the war too soon, before the entire Republican Guard was destroyed, and abandoned the Iraqi people when they rose up. Also, our general in that war, Schwartzkopff, wasn't too smart, and he let Saddam keep his helicopters, when he should have shot them out of the sky. If the Coalition in 1991 had kept fighting for a few more days and destroyed all of Saddam's tanks and Republican Guards, and had shot down all Iraqi helicopters, the uprisings against Saddam would have succeeded.

 

Thank goodness, this time Bush the Second did not listen to appeasers or to the UN, and he decided to remove Saddam.

 

You must remember that it has been the official policy of the US Government to remove Saddam since 1998, that a law was passed that year, called the Iraqi Liberation Act, but the previous President, Clinton, was only willing to talk about removing Saddam, but would never act, because his party, the Democrats, is controlled by appeasers who believe that America must submit to the UN, and to those who hate America. That is why the majority of Americans will not elect Kerry as President in November, because they do not want to submit to those who hate us.

 

So, once America was attacked on 9/11, the vast majority of Americans wanted our enemies to be destroyed, to make sure that we can be safe. We knew that Saddam wanted Americans dead, that he wanted revenge for his defeat in 1991. Americans do not want to see more piles of dead Americans killed in mass attacks, and we know that the reason Saddam was trying to develop nuclear weapons was to use them against us. One nuclear bomb would kill hundreds of thousands of Americans if it was detonated in one of our cities.

 

So, it is quite obvious, that once 9/11 happened, that Saddam's days were numbered.

 

But there is more to this, because America could have just invaded Iraq, blown Saddam away, and left. But G.W. Bush is a very smart man, with very smart advisors, like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Paul Wolfowitz, and they advised him, that as long as there are tyrannical countries, with oppressive governments, that there will be more terrorists and more people that will hide the terrorists. It is true that terrorists do not come from democratic countries in large numbers. If you look at the Middle East, most terrorists come from countries with no democracy like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, etc, and you may notice that not many come from democracies like Turkey, or from muslims born in France, Italy, Germany, etc. So President Bush and his administration have decided that the best solution to stop terrorism is help the Middle East to turn to democracy. America wants Iraq to become a democracy, because democracies do not attack each other. As an example, even though America and France do not get along and are not close friends, we do not fight each other, and can settle our differences peacefully. Once Iraq is a democracy, when Iraq and America have a dispute, we will settle it peacefully.

 

I think that America will do what it can to give democracy to Iraq. Remember that America fought very bitter wars against Germany and Japan that killed over over 400,000 Americans, and after we had won the wars, we spent billions of dollars to rebuild those countries and helped them to establish democracies, which are now free and prosperous.

 

Some day Iraq will be like Japan and Germany are today, but Iraq will be much richer and much more prosperous. It will be free and democratic and peaceful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And also got this one from Brandon L

#########################

Why do the Americans liberat Iraqis and occupy Iraq?

 

I think this is a good question raised by Basim Almustaar, one which I

am afraid a majority of my fellow Americans cannot even answer. Many

think we liberated Iraq because we feared Saddam's WMD, some think it

was for oil... In my opinion neither is the case.

 

The moment that the Bush administration mentioned invading Iraq - it

was clear was clear to me the motivation was neither WMD or oil, but

rather CULTURE. Let me explain.

 

One has to go back to 9/11 and ask "What motivated terrorist to fly

planes into the WTC?"

 

What drove these terrorists to blow up the WTC is the realization that

their warped fundamentalist religious culture is being replaced in the

name of progress. For instance, the fundamental Saudi religious leader

who sees his grandson watching Baywatch and his granddaughter starting

to get thoughts in her head that she should be treated like a human

being, given freedom and a education. They see these things which

oppose their radical religious views and declare a "holy war" against

western culture "the great satan". Now who is the leader of this

'western evil'? The U S of A.

 

They (radical Islamic terrorists) have decided that they cannot live

in a world 'infected' with western culture - and seem pretty adamant

about it too... We let a lot of bombings slide by in the past

(Tanzania, USS Cole, Lebanon, etc.) but this last one (9/11) leaves us

only two choices. We can hunker down, and sacrifice all our civil

rights so our government can prevent another attack, but that goes

against the principles of liberty and freedom which are at the very

core of our culture. So, unfortunately, we are going to have to go

with option two... Wipe them off the face of the earth. It is obvious

that we cannot physically eliminate every terrorist any more than they

can eliminate us... So, how then?

 

Here is how... Move into the enemy's back yard (Iraq) and bring with us

more liberty, democracy, free speech, and capitalism than they every

imagined. Help create a flourishing free society where people have

Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Equal Protection under Law -

where women are treated equally - where the government exists for its

people rather than for some tyrannical despot or repressive theocracy.

Freedom is contagious. This is a war of ideas and ideologies, fought

and won in hearts and minds, not on the battle field.

 

My one regret is that we did not do this until our own freedom was

being threatened. For that I am ashamed.

 

If you have time let me know what you think about these ideas.

 

Take Care and God Bless,

Brandon Leach (Texas)

 

 

 

I think that the best example of this initiative President Bush's

Speech at the 20th Anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy.

(I think it is the most important speech given by a US President in a

long time. )

You can listen/watch it here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0031106-2.html#

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got this through email..

######################################

 

Please spread the word that if they will stop fighting us, we will leave. We do not believe that our form of democracy is what the Iraqi's want now. We made a terrible mistake in thinking that the people of Iraq actually wanted freedom. I do not believe that Iraq will ever be free, and most Americans do not either. We sent our sons, fathers, brother, husbands over there to help Iraq, and they were killed. We want them home, and the only way we can get them home is you will stop fighting them. We bury dead everyday also, we cry for our dead also. We want our soldiers home. We love them as much as you love yours. We want them to come home. Then you can decide the fate of your country, not us. Just stop fighting us so that they can come home. They dont want to be there anymore either. But until the fighting stops they will have to stay. Americans took billions of our dollars, out of our pocket, we sacrificed so much that could have went to improve America, so that we could help Iraq. We sent so many intelligent men and women over there to teach on new equipment for your country, and to repair. Now they are also being killed. I dont know you, but what we see on television over in America shows Iraqi's to be a warring nation, that thrives on murder, theft, and a fanatic religion. WE WANT OUR SOLDIERS HOME! Iraq will never change, the people of Iraq do not want it to change. So please tell everyone that will listen to you that if you want the Americans out, stop fighting them.

Elaine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest
We do not believe that our form of democracy is what the Iraqi's want now

Dear Eline,

Don'y you agree with me that this is what all the terror in the world are looking for? Don't you agree that this is exactly the reason behind 9/11.. We ran away from confronting those terrorists hopping that we would be safe in our land way far from their reach..

The liberation of Iraqis is the hart of the battel , I remember Salim was writting some thing regarding that two weeks agao. I might be repeating his here.

Please don't let the terrorist succed to mix the cards.. Iraqis are moving forward toward freedom and we need to have the mission accomplished.. Otherwise we are just retreating our beloved Iraqis and Americans and others scarifies..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bostonian
I do not believe that Iraq will ever be free... what we see on television over in America shows Iraqi's to be a warring nation, that thrives on murder, theft, and a fanatic religion... Iraq will never change, the people of Iraq do not want it to change.

 

Elaine

 

See the racism of the American Left.

 

This turns my stomach and saddens my heart.

 

Fortunately, this woman is in a minority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's people like them that give the terrorists another reason to get out of bed and attack my soldier friends and their Iraqi Brothers. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The U.S. attacked, bombed, and invaded Iraq to liberate it? I thought it was because Saddam was supposed to be able to nuke the west in 45 minutes with his WMD's. So who will the U.S. liberate next..how about Egypt or "Myanmar"? China? There are lots of mass graves in Guatemala, Indonesia, Chile, as well as torture chambers and raping rooms (Saddam was probably cynical enough to label his).

The British killed about 10 thousand Iraqis in the the 1920 uprising; I wonder if the Americans have caught up yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bob from Pine Creek

WE are the cause of 2 million people dying. If Saddam had stayed in power, WE would have been the cause of countless more. The Iraqis could not have removed him, and he was OUR fault. They have a chance now - one that some groups in their country wish to squander simply because they don't trust us. Them not trusting us is OUR fault, too.

 

The ones we kill in this conflict are nothing (and I don't mean to be disrespectful of the dead or their families) compared to how many him and his sons would have killed while they remained in power. And they were OUR fault. Every day the US Government left that man in power we were killing, torturing, raping thousands and thousands. So, our choice was simple. Accidentally kill some civilians, or allow him to intentially kill 10, 100, 1000 times that number. IN OUR NAME.

 

And here's something for you - I don't like Bush. In fact I hate him. I don't like being lied to. But I guarantee that if he didn't lie - no matter what his true motives were - we would have left OUR puppet in Iraq killing and mutilating and murdering. But all he would have said to convince ME would have been to say to us "We caused a problem, one that is killing people by the millions, and we need to fix it" or said to the Iraqi people "we are sorry. We have caused you so much pain. We can't change the past, but we can help change your future" - I would have had so much respect for him, and I would have gladly done it.

 

See, for people that haven't seen it, its all just words. When I was dating my ex-fiance, her best friend was a woman from Iraq. All it took for me in this war was to remember when that woman was crying for joy when we attacked last time. She thought we were going in to bring him down. She was a Shia, and the stories she told still haunt me. Her family fled in the night from the country shortly after it *really* started getting bad for the Shia.

 

When I heard we were invading, and I heard why, I had a very hard time. I was so torn, I mulled it over for quite awile. I feel we went in without Honor. Honor is a very important thing to me. But then I made the realization that *something had to be done* and it wasn't hard to let it slide.

 

I've had doubts since. Some of me is stunned at the simple stupidity of the insurgency. They want us out, but are doing the exact thing they should do to keep us there forever. But occasionally I come across something like this:

 

http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/2004_02_01_d...660057407559034

 

The first time I got an email from an American soldier in Iraq I wasn’t sure how to react. These days I read a couple of US soldier blogs and a couple even send me emails every now and then. I was answering one of them from [Mr. Somewhere-in-the-north-of-Iraq] when I decided later to post it on the blog. So here it is. And on a more personal note; No [Mr. Somewhere-in-the-north-of-Iraq], it doesn’t bother me that you are “one of the American occupiers?” because I don’t think of you as an Occupier, I know you would much rather be home and you are stuck here because someone said this is where you should be.

 

This is what he wrote:

 

    What's the right answer?

 

    Is it to have driven Saddam out (which requires a war), but with a truly United, worldwide coalition, along with a master-plan for the post-war? Is there another way to have removed Saddam? Or should he have been left in power, isolated from the international community, and basically allowing the maintenance of the status quo? Although I know most of Iraq wanted him gone, is it realistic to believe that Iraqis would have pushed Saddam from power? I think--but don't know--that Saddam had consolidated so much power over the masses that it would have been impossible for Iraqis themselves to deal the death knell to his regime (that would pass on to his progeny)? Basically, should the issue of Iraq been left 100% to the Iraqis from the beginning (no war)?

    On another note, is America too powerful? Doesn't it usually do good things with its power, or does it screw up as much as it helps?

 

He doesn’t believe in easy small talk does he?

 

It is pointless to debate what should have been done. There was a war almost a year ago and we have to deal with its consequences, there was time for debate much earlier. The powers that be made their decisions, whether right or wrong, at that time. I am a very pragmatic person, Raed’s nickname for me was [salam the PragmaPig] I deal with the shit as it happens, never a moment of regret – well almost. But for the sake of debate…….

 

[Dear readers, please give me a chance to empty my mailbox before flooding it with hatemail, otherwise your passionately written critique will bounce]

 

What annoyed me most in the whole build up to the war was the act the US administration put on, the way they seemed almost surprised at how much of a baddy Saddam has been and how it was time to slap him on the hand and wash his mouth with soap for all the bad things he has done. The various documents that were produced to show how much of a bully he has been on the international playground were treated as if they were so new and startling. That was just silly. What the US administration didn’t put in those records and documents was the extent of its own involvement in building up this monster and now that he has grown bigger than they thought he could they thought it was time to get rid of him. You ask is there another way to have removed Saddam? Well yes but that would have involved something the US administration didn’t see necessary at the time. It should have happened right after the first gulf war. The scene was set and all the players were ready to play there part in Iraq. More than two thirds of Iraq was out of Saddam’s control. There was a sense that people have achieved things for themselves, truly proud revolutionaries not the scared people who had to be helped by an outsider they are now. But what did the US administration choose to do? It pooped on them; it allowed Saddam to start a persecution of Shia that was so extreme; it left the country with deep scars that will take a long time to heal. Even the political situation would have been easier to handle, the rift between Shia and Sunnis wasn’t as big as it is now. The country still had its secular educated class, which now is all over the world having turned to political and economic refugees trying to escape the claws of Saddam and the difficult economic situation in Iraq after the war and the sanctions.

But as I said it is no use crying over spilt milk, we have to deal with what we have now.

 

You say “Or should he have been left in power, isolated from the international community, and basically allowing the maintenance of the status quo?” well, that is exactly what the Bush administration chose to do at the time, isn’t it? But that policy didn’t just isolate Saddam but the Iraqi people and gave him more power over the destinies of Iraqis, we became so dependant on a government that wasn’t at all fit to take care of us.

 

Anyway, all that doesn’t matter now. Saddam is gone, thanks to you. Was it worth it? Be assured it was. We all know that it got to a point where we would have never been rid of Saddam without foreign intervention; I just wish it would have been a bit better planned. Does this mean that I will be wearing a (I [heart] Bush) t-shirt? NO, because I don’t believe there is any altruism in politics and the way he sees the world scares me.

What I do really and sincerely hope for is that the day you and other soldiers and US civilians here don’t have to stay behind those high concrete walls isn’t too far away; and that you feel safe walking in the streets without those hard and heavy flak jackets, so that we can sit and talk about these things in a Karrada Street tea shop.

There are many challenges Iraqis have to face now, so please stick around a bit longer and try helping us get thru them. One of the more serious challenges is the fact that Iraq has become a sort of an open playground for many political and religious factions who are using Iraq as a fighting ground.

So there you have it [Mr. Somewhere-in-the-north-of-Iraq], and by the way you never told me whether you had a blog or not.

 

Right now, its a mess. Any armed conflict has its aftermath. I am a Humanist. I believe with my entire "soul" that humanity can overcome any problem it encounters. At this point in history, sometimes war is what has to happen. Saddam was so dug in that war was the only way to get him out. Even in the eleventh hour, he was offered asylum in several countries, and we were clear that it would be an accepted resolution - but his pride made him stay. So now we have a conflict that has given the human race another scar to bear. But it will end. Whether good or bad, it will end, and no matter the outcome, Iraq has something it hasn't had for 3 decades - a choice. Iraq may make the wrong one, but after 3 decades of oppression, I can guarantee that Iraq will eventually be what the Iraqi people want it to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mustefser
But all he would have said to convince ME would have been to say to us "We caused a problem, one that is killing people by the millions, and we need to fix it" or said to the Iraqi people "we are sorry. We have caused you so much pain. We can't change the past, but we can help change your future" - I would have had so much respect for him, and I would have gladly done it.

 

This might be the best ever statement that I might thought of about how to rebuild trust with Iraqis.. Most of Iraqis really think that all what Saddam had committed was motivated by the Americans, they really need such open and fair consideration by the Americans , investigating all the wrong doing by previous US governments, if any, helping Saddam killing Iraqis and others. There is real need to open a Saddam testimony by the Congress.. Investigating any wrong doing .. This would be of a great help to heal the wounds and to figure out the real size of the issue. Of course this might be blocked by some restrictions by some security agencies, but I think any investigation even a classified one would do a lot.

 

This is not to criticize what had happened but to start new era of friendship and long standing trust..

Thank you Bob for bringing this up.. I think you had just touched the real issue of un trust.. Look to what this new debaaathification policy had done.. Most of the Iraqis "Mostly Shia" that I had talked to last week, brought this un trust issue.. They were wondering if this would be another betrayal!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When I was dating my ex-fiance, her best friend was a woman from Iraq.  All it took for me in this war was to remember when that woman was crying for joy when we attacked last time. 

 

 

I had several close Iraqi friends in college in the 60's. One left Iraq in the 90's fearing for his life and now lives in Canada. He lived through the bombing of Baghdad in '91. But he says he will not return home as long as American soldiers are occupying his country.

 

It is good that Saddam is gone; I think the CIA etc could have found a way to take him out, as they have done to so many other leaders, without bombing a city of 5 million or killing thousands of innocent people. But an all out invasion was the only way the U.S. could secure a base in Iraq. .

 

If you compare the number of people Saddam killed on a straight percentage basis with the numbers of indigenous people killed in Guatemala, El Salvador, Indonesia, etc, by dictators armed and trained by the U.S., I believe the numbers of victims would compare more closely.

 

Yes, the U.S. should have taken Saddam out as well as all other dictators who torture, kill or imprison people for their views (I've heard that Hosni Mubarak does that), but they surely could have found a way that didn't involved the deaths of thousands. I naively thought they would be careful since this was an optional war, a war of choice (not that it was a real "war" any more than Saddam "went to war" with Kuwait or Hitler "went to war" with Poland) It was just a simple flatout attack and invasion. Over six hundred alone were killed by the U.S. in Fallujah two weeks ago, yet the they continue to bomb that city.

 

Then we have the sadistic yahoos at the prison who tortured, humiliated, and photographed Iraqi detainees. Those moronic soldiers are probably related to those Americans who after 9/11 went around attacking Indian-American Sikhs wearing turbans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bob from Pine Creek
But all he would have said to convince ME would have been to say to us "We caused a problem, one that is killing people by the millions, and we need to fix it" or said to the Iraqi people "we are sorry. We have caused you so much pain. We can't change the past, but we can help change your future" - I would have had so much respect for him, and I would have gladly done it.

 

This might be the best ever statement that I might thought of about how to rebuild trust with Iraqis.. Most of Iraqis really think that all what Saddam had committed was motivated by the Americans, they really need such open and fair consideration by the Americans , investigating all the wrong doing by previous US governments, if any, helping Saddam killing Iraqis and others. There is real need to open a Saddam testimony by the Congress.. Investigating any wrong doing .. This would be of a great help to heal the wounds and to figure out the real size of the issue. Of course this might be blocked by some restrictions by some security agencies, but I think any investigation even a classified one would do a lot.

 

This is not to criticize what had happened but to start new era of friendship and long standing trust..

Thank you Bob for bringing this up.. I think you had just touched the real issue of un trust.. Look to what this new debaaathification policy had done.. Most of the Iraqis "Mostly Shia" that I had talked to last week, brought this un trust issue.. They were wondering if this would be another betrayal!!

Unfortunately it isn't that simple. Saddam's regime wasn't the fault of the USA alone. Altho we certainly helped it happen, a good part of the blame lies on not just the west and the USA, but also much of the Arab world itself. Specifically, much of Saudi Arabia's duplicity would need to be exposed. Not mention Syria. Iraq and its past 30 years is quite a problem.

 

Saddam used our money to buy French and Soviet weapons to attack an enemy that was specified by Saudi Arabia. The Iran-Iraq war had little to do with politics and everything to do with using Saddam as a tool to go after the new Revolutionary government of Iran. Saudi Arabia was *very* concerned that it's Shia minority (such as it is) would start demanding more rights after Iran's revoltuion. Ever wonder why the early 80's saw such an increase in friendliness between the USA and Saudi Arabia?

 

Having accountability in the US government would only be a very small consolation. What is more of an issue is why the Arab world abandoned Iraq, and continues to do so simply for political posturing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest

 

When I was dating my ex-fiance, her best friend was a woman from Iraq.  All it took for me in this war was to remember when that woman was crying for joy when we attacked last time. 

 

 

I had several close Iraqi friends in college in the 60's. One left Iraq in the 90's fearing for his life and now lives in Canada. He lived through the bombing of Baghdad in '91. But he says he will not return home as long as American soldiers are occupying his country.

 

It is good that Saddam is gone; I think the CIA etc could have found a way to take him out, as they have done to so many other leaders, without bombing a city of 5 million or killing thousands of innocent people. But an all out invasion was the only way the U.S. could secure a base in Iraq. .

 

If you compare the number of people Saddam killed on a straight percentage basis with the numbers of indigenous people killed in Guatemala, El Salvador, Indonesia, etc, by dictators armed and trained by the U.S., I believe the numbers of victims would compare more closely.

 

Yes, the U.S. should have taken Saddam out as well as all other dictators who torture, kill or imprison people for their views (I've heard that Hosni Mubarak does that), but they surely could have found a way that didn't involved the deaths of thousands. I naively thought they would be careful since this was an optional war, a war of choice (not that it was a real "war" any more than Saddam "went to war" with Kuwait or Hitler "went to war" with Poland) It was just a simple flatout attack and invasion. Over six hundred alone were killed by the U.S. in Fallujah two weeks ago, yet the they continue to bomb that city.

 

Then we have the sadistic yahoos at the prison who tortured, humiliated, and photographed Iraqi detainees. Those moronic soldiers are probably related to those Americans who after 9/11 went around attacking Indian-American Sikhs wearing turbans.

Good for you! It is nice to know that people all over the world have different opinions. It is part of what makes this world a beautiful place. It is nice that you have found an Iraqi ex-patriot that does not have the same viewpoint as the woman I knew. Ask your friend how many people in his town\city he saw raped and mutilated in the street as an example of how beneath notice the Shia were in Saddam's regime.

 

I see your friend as the exact reason why Iraq will slowly spiral into yet another period of civil war until a new dictator rises up. Occupation or not, this is Iraq's only real chance.

 

Also, I'm not exactly sure what your point is. Many people of your opinion argue the past. The question of should we or shouldn't we has already been answered. Do you honestly believe it helps anyone to sit and talk about how the USA shouldn't have invaded? Why isn't your friend there helping to rebuild the infrastructure of his own country?

 

I'll add one more point. We don't have a vested interest in the stability of Guatemala, El Salvadore, Indonesia, etc. Why should we go in? Think about it. We all know that if it wasn't for the oil, we would not have gone. We *do* OTOH have a vested interest in stability in Iraq.

 

As for the deaths of thousands, I would like you to have come up with a way to remove Saddam using covert ops. As a quantifier, keep in mind that every day you take to figure a way to take Saddam out, he is killing a few thousand people. See, Saddam's regime wasn't just one man. If Saddam would have fallen, one of his sons would have taken control. If they were taken out, there would be a short power struggle and one of his generals would be the next. There was no way to strip out the entire problem with any CIA action. There was no peaceful way of getting rid of Saddam, especially after the Gulf War. Besides, being a Saddam duplicate was one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. Ever stop to think that maybe the CIA *was* working to take him out? It is well and good that you count the dead caused by American Occupation. But don't you remember the numbers from Saddam? I would just like one person to answer a simple question. What was your magic number for you to want to stop Saddam? While you talk of 600 dead, many of which were actively attacking our troops, I talk of 2 MILLION dead. You talk about a mass grave in the middle of a soccer stadium. I talk about 269 mass graves *just that we know about* from Saddam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mustefser

Bob

Altho we certainly helped it happen, a good part of the blame lies on not just the west and the USA, but also much of the Arab world itself.

 

Fully agree, however , it is the US interest today to build trust with Iraqis and bridge the gap that last decades policies had done.. Arabs and most of the west don't have such interest.. America took the lead in helping Iraqis, America should keep the momentum..

Taking part in a worng action wouldn't keep our responsibility away.. What I am suggesting is not to balme the Americans but to give them the lead in correcting the wrong doing, to put the issue in it's real size. It might set a great push to the trust building process..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Guest" wrote: As for the deaths of thousands, I would like you to have come up with a way to remove Saddam using covert ops.

 

I leave that to the experts. But many of the top Pentagon generals were opposed to the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld plan. Bush proceeded during the runup to the attack on Iraq to scare half to death the already jumpy US citizenry as well as the troops with the horrors of Saddam's WMD's and continually mentioning his name with that of Osama Bin Laden and 9/11 in the same statement. That is one reason why there were so many avoidable Iraqi deaths at checkpoints and on city streets at the hands of frightenend, jumpy troops - long before the suicide bombings began. And then there continues to be the use of cluster bombs - see the Human Rights Watch website:

U.S.: Hundreds of Civilian Deaths in Iraq Were Preventable : http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/12/us-iraq-press.htm

 

At least "Guest" isn't deluding him or herself that the U.S. invaded Iraq for the sake of human rights, as so many Americans have, conveniently forgetting that finding WMD's was the original purpose, not to mention that a large portion on the U.S. citizenry still believes Saddam was behind 9/11. Human rights has never been a major motivating factor in hardly any country's foreign policy. The U.S. is no exception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...