Quote:
Originally Posted by nabilfannoush
....Since we've already established that the 'good of the Iraqi people' here is virtually nil, we can see this is only for the presumed 'interest' by some ambitious careerists in Washington who have no respect for the sanctity of other people's lives as long as it is done on someone else's turf. And, no, there's no room for worrying about voting, government representation , democracyand other noble-sounding quests if you do not even have the basic amenities of life and survival.What's the point?
I'm glad you find the Hitler analogy offensive, because that is exactly my point: You cannot use your ideals or 'interests'-however noble they seem to you-on other people. If I was a warlord and decided that my political or religious or system was better than yours and that 'for your own good' and 'my interest in the area' and that I should invade the US and stop you 'for the greater good' regardless of how many civilians I manage to get killed on the way you would probably be singing a different tune,
|
Nabil:
I imagine you as a warm, generous person on an emotional roller coaster ride over Iraq. It's clear we come from different cultures with different ideas about life. There is nothing wrong with that; it's just an observation.
This line illustrates some of what I mean: I quote you:
"And, no, there's no room for worrying about voting, government representation , democracyand other noble-sounding quests if you do not even have the basic amenities of life and survival.What's the point?"
I am tempted to ask what you think the insurgency is fighting for. Food? Basic amenities? Survival?
In any case, the US grew out the basic sentiment expressed by the revolutionary patriot Thomas Paine, who said, "give me liberty or give me death."
I am sure you will agree that Saddam accommodated a lot of his people with the 'death' part. Wouldn't it be better to have food and liberty? Both are within the grasp of the Iraqi people and they knew it when they voted for their own government 2 years ago. It's the insurgents and AQ that are preventing it.
You say you are glad I took offense when you compare US aims to Hilter's because, and I quote you, "You cannot use your ideals or 'interests'-however noble they seem to you-on other people."
The simple fact is that our aim is not even remotely the same as Hilter's was. The US objective in toppling Saddam was not primarily to impose our ideals of government on the Iraqi people, but to achieve the strategic goal of a stable Middle East, which we believe is in our interest and the interest of our allies in the region. We were led by Iraqi expatriots to believe the Iraqi people wanted liberty and self-government. So our post invasion plans included that.
The president didn't muse about how nice it would be if the Iraqi people had a democracy, then call in his military chiefs and say, "Hey, boys, let's knock off that butcher, Saddam so we can give the Iraqis a democratic like ours."
No. The conversation was more like this: "It's in our interest to see a stable ME. Where do we start? Iraq? Saddam is a proven threat to Middle East stability; he's unpredictable; he's liable to get into bed with AQ to further their terrorism activities as a way of getting to us. These bomb attacks on our embassies, ships and buildings are getting worse and have to stop. AQ's goal is to unite the ME into a single entity under strict Islamic law. They want to wipe out any vestigages of western influence and to use ME oil reserves to wreak havoc on the US economy. It won't stop even if we kill Bin Ladin. We have to act soon. Make plans for taking out Saddam and creating a stable Iraq."
I am not making any value judgements concerning that line of thought, just relating how it likely went down.
The US made one glaring mistake in Iraq; it didn't send in enough troops. Because of that, it could not prevent looting; it could not secure all the Iraqi ammunintion dumps; it could not round up Saddam's senior people fast enough; it could not secure the border with Iran and Syria; it could not prevent attacks on the oil infrastructure; it could not secure the cities so that electricity and water works could be quickly put back on line; it could not take and hold likely insurgent strongholds; and worse of all it could not snuff out the insurgency in its infancy. To compound the error, the US disbanded the Iraqi army, banned all former Baath party members from serving in the government, and rejected the advice of tribal heads.
Iraq would be a completely different place today if we had sent in 100,000 more troops. It would have functioning representative government; an effective army and police force; electricity; water; a growing economy; better health facilities; plenty of food; and most important, the ME would be more stable. And much more. Can we now add 100,000 troops and reverse the errors? Perhaps, but a majority of the US public is fixated on the errors and demanding that US troops leave. What happens to Iraq if we leave? What do you think?