quote:As I recall, the last poll showed about 70% of Iraqis wanted us to leave.
And, yet, the democratically elected government of Iraq wants us to stay.
I think the current government there is as democratically elected as Saddam was when we more-or-less installed him there to counter Iran.
Isn't this also like the 70% of Americans view the Iraq war as a failure, while our "democratically elected government" saw Mission Accomplished three years ago?
A bold statement. Just so I understand, are you saying that the current government of Iraq was not in any way voted into office by the people of Iraq but was selected by some other criteria and installed in some way similar to how Saddam came to power?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
War is war, and nobody hates it more then a soldier. Regardles of what deceptions or misinformation has sent our troops to Iraq is immaterial at this point. The fact is we are there, and if we leave they will be left far worse then when Saddam was in power, and that is saying something. Now we have responsibility to help them get order back before we go, or allow them to drawn their own borders. Saying that our soldiers are in the same grouping as the terrorists we are going after however shows a blinding ignorance. The difference between a soldier and a terrorist is simple. The terrorist blows up a school and his peers applaud him for each child killed. A soldier rapes a civilian and his brothers scorn him and punish him. I want to get back to this comparison and difference between a murderous terrorist and a true soldier. I served for several years, and I saw soldiers reach out to help their enemy with medical support and food after the fighting was done. The terrorist parade the bodies of the fallen like childish trophies. The difference is morality versus blind obsession. Fundamentalist of any kind no longer see their opposition as human, and thus their cause cause becomes inhumane. Every soldier that is in Iraq volunteered for service, and that says something about their character even if they joined before war. They are policed, and controlled, held to the same laws you and I are, and even held to a higher standard with the UCMJ. The media makes these stories sensational because they sell papers, and people fall into this trap of biased material to further their causes or validate their extreme beliefs. The US forces try to elimanate causalities on both sides and obtain an object with the most minimal loss of life on either side. To compare them to terrorist shows your ignorance and inabilty to see the big picture. Thoughts like this let me know the terrorist have not lost yet, because where ever there is ignorance they can plant the seed of blind hate and singular trains of thought.
Posts: 120 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, it's hard to ensure a democratically elected government in a place as volatile as Iraq. Just because elections were held doesn't mean there's fair representation. After all in 2002, Saddam got 100% of the vote.
I'm not trying to imply that the current government is illegitimate. I know very little about the elections and the current government, and I don't know of any reason to suspect fraud. If there are any irregularities, I suspect that it would be more due to infighting within the Iraqi population, not U.S. interference. I'm just saying that holding an "election" isn't always a sign of true democracy.
Oh, and I'd be interested to hear from someone who wasn't horrified and outraged when they first heard about this. It's horrible that anyone would do this, and worse that these are people who, to some degree, represent all of us.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that saying that "typically" people would rather die than live in bondage is foolish. We had actual slaves in this country - not just politically repressed, not just second class citizens - actual slaves. Slave revolts did happen, but they certainly weren't typical. If the Iraqis were choosing that, they would have revolted whether or not we were backing them.
And, again, who are we to choose. And calling people who aren't willing to have their children blown up for the sake of western style democracy "sissies" really bothers me.
Yes. The government we overthrew, as evil as it was, did provide those things for most of those citizens. This was particularly true before the sanctions.
300,000 civilian casualties? Really. The highest numbers I have ever heard are closer to 50,000. But, as you say, not the point (though I am curious about this.)
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Slave revolts did happen, but they certainly weren't typical
It is my understanding that they COULD have been typical. Revolts did occur enough that it was a constant worry for slave owners. Its not exactly accurate to count the gross numbers of actual revolts as evidence of slave dissent. IMO a more accurate gauge is how much legislation was passed in the south in order to strongly react to revolts and more importantly repress slaves to the point they could not organize and therefore couldn't revolt.
I will read your link when I get home, pdf documents make my computer at work have seizures.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What does "could have been typical" mean? There were about 4,000,000 slaves in the US at the time of the civil war - how many would that make going back to the beginning of slavery in the US? There were maybe a dozen revolts of note in 200 years? Most of which engaged fewer than 100 people. Clearly many of them choose to remain slaves rather than die. And choosing death doesn't have to mean an organized revolt. Any slave could have just refused to work and been killed if they would choose death over slavery. Thankfully not a typical choice. Nor, in my opinion, a good choice. Certainly not one we have any right to assume for someone else.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What does "could have been typical" mean? There were about 4,000,000 slaves in the US at the time of the civil war - how many would that make going back to the beginning of slavery in the US? There were maybe a dozen revolts of note in 200 years? Most of which engaged fewer than 100 people. Clearly many of them choose to remain slaves rather than die. And choosing death doesn't have to mean an organized revolt. Any slave could have just refused to work and been killed if they would choose death over slavery. Thankfully not a typical choice. Nor, in my opinion, a good choice. Certainly not one we have any right to assume for someone else.
Could have been typical, as in. Were it not for the sweeping legislation, and very organized repressive movement we would have seen alot more uprisings. As it were because it was virtually impossible to organize large scale revolts, most slaves opted to just run off on their own, or in small groups. The fact there were slave revolts at all is quite remarkable seeing as how they were not allowed to be literate, and plantations were pretty well spaced out. But IMO the underground railroad, the negro spirituals (with hidden instructions for escaping), revolts that DID occur, the harsh legislation that fiercely punished slaves for very slight offenses, and the African Americans reaction to being freed is good enough evidence IMO to conclude that African Americans wished to be free rather then remain slaves.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, no kidding people would rather be free than slaves. You were claiming they would rather be dead than slaves. More, you were claiming that we should assume that Iraqi's (at least the non-sissie ones) would rather be dead than politically oppressed.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As I recall, the last poll showed about 70% of Iraqis wanted us to leave.
And, yet, the democratically elected government of Iraq wants us to stay.
I think the current government there is as democratically elected as Saddam was when we more-or-less installed him there to counter Iran.
I think the truth is somewhere in between. The Iraqis who came out to vote elected the current government. But much of the Sunni minority did not turn out to vote, and Sunnis who have attempted to vote or participate in the government have had themselves and their families threatened, if not actually assaulted or murdered.
quote:Originally posted by Abhi: With all due respect [and I do respect the army... my father has fought several wars], I dont believe a person who says:
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: the Iraqi people weren't worth saving. That they were "lacking in basic human virtue."
Or just pulling out, leaving a nuclear device in the middle of Iraq with a button that says "do not push" and waiting for the inevitable.
has empathized much with the people of Iraq.
Well, you're entitled to your opinion. After a certain amount of time treating soldiers with varying levels of combat fatigue and exposure to a citizenry that mostly seems hostile and dangerous to you and others, I imagine it takes a toll on your faith in human nature.
One of the other stories he told was of an eight-year-old boy accurately rattling off the capabilities of various weapons... And the penetration statistics on the body armor the soldiers were wearing.
I have nightmares about Iraq. I can't even begin to imagine what it must be like for him. I wish like hell he didn't have to go back.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I have no doubt there are degenerate people in Iraq. That there are people who genuinely desire evil to be accomplished there. But I am equally certain that there are good people there seeking to stamp out ignorance and promote education, understanding, and peace. If there are those who would support evil, we can do no less then they in supporting good.
I do not know if by "we can do no less" you mean that we have an obligation to support good, or that we can be as effective as those who support evil by supporting good, or both. In any case, I thank you for your kind words.
I wish Iraq had a simple solution. It doesn't. Aside from excessive invective, I can't disdain people who feel the war in Iraq is worthwhile; the fear of spreading terrorism is real. Likewise, I don't disagree with those who feel we should withdraw, either; there is a real case to be made that our presence is doing as much harm as it is good.
Underneath my brother-in-laws comments, there's an idea I think people on both sides would probably agree with: "I wish there was something simple we could do, some wand we could wave that would make this immense, complicated, possibly unsolvable problem go away."
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think the current government there is as democratically elected as Saddam was when we more-or-less installed him there to counter Iran.
I'd like to see some analysis of this other than a blatant assertion that flies in the face of the election, the protracted negotiations for forming a government, and the large numbers of elected officials who basically don't like America.
Besides that, what evidence do you have that we "more-or-less" installed him there. he was a fixture in the government - probably the number two man - until 1979, when he forced out the Iraqi leader over a squabble about unification with Syria.
The U.S. had little to do with his rise to power, the vast majority of which happened while Iran was still an ally. The U.S. involvement in the plot to assassinate the leader of a coup was in 1958.
quote:Isn't this also like the 70% of Americans view the Iraq war as a failure, while our "democratically elected government" saw Mission Accomplished three years ago?
"Like" in what way? You mean "like" in the sense that we don't generally allow unregulated opinion polls to override the results of actual elections? Yes, it is like that.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Well, no kidding people would rather be free than slaves. You were claiming they would rather be dead than slaves. More, you were claiming that we should assume that Iraqi's (at least the non-sissie ones) would rather be dead than politically oppressed.
I said no such thing. I said that people "Typically would rather die free then live in bondage."
I never once said that anybody who is in bondage with no hope of escape and no perceived change on the horizon would then kill themselves. Many people accept the yoke of bondage for years at a time.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I said that people "Typically would rather die free then live in bondage."
And you were still wrong. Any slave can die free, it's not difficult. The difficult part is to get away and be able to live free; which is why so many slaves chose to live in bondage instead.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade, I'm still not understanding the difference. The choices are free and dead or alive and in bondage. Die free, live opressed.
We decided that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis - including children - would prefer to be dead because we wanted them to be free (giving us the benefit of the doubt about our motives) and that the only way to achieve that was by invading.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apparently we have a misunderstanding. I thought you were suggesting that I said people would rather die in the attempt to get free rather then live in bondage.
I certainly agree that many slaves believe that risking ones life in order to be free is too great a price.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, you give the govt to much credit. They did not willingly sacrifice the many many Iraqi casualties in exchange for freedom.
They did not consider that such prices would have to be paid.
They were willing to sacrifice the lives of a few American Soldiers to bring freedom and safety to millions of Iraqis.
That is a wonderful thing.
To bad they screwed it up, huh.
Now instead of a chance for freedom at little cost, they have little chance for freedom at such a great cost. (By little chance, the more violence that happens now, the more likely some military strong man, or Sadr, will become warlord over his area, eventually dictator--er President for Life and Iraq will be about where it was under Hussein.)
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Apparently we have a misunderstanding. I thought you were suggesting that I said people would rather die in the attempt to get free rather then live in bondage.
I certainly agree that many slaves believe that risking ones life in order to be free is too great a price.
We still have a misunderstanding. How is that different? I seem to have some kind of a mental block, but "would rather die free than live in bondage" means that, given the choice of death or bondage, they would choose death.
That, at any rate, is the choice we have chosen for hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
Dan, if the government did not foresee this outcome, it was because they willfully chose not to see it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
