Posted on 08/16/2005 7:13:40 AM PDT by Brigadier
bttt
Oh, and we can surely believe Sadaam, can't we?
The Reagan administration made political calculations because of the threat that Iran posed to the region.. The fact that we kept Sadaam supplied during his war with Iran kept them BOTH off the backs of others in the region for at least 10 years. It was only when he decided that he needed to be 'Supreme Caliph' of Iraq and Kuwait that he was taken down a peg or two. He then ignored the terms from the end of Gulf War I, and was starting to be more friendly to the Islamic terrorists that had plagued the Middle East for the last 30 years.
And you have sent how many of your loved ones over there?
My interest is in the political resolution of this in a way that leaves a remnant of stability in that region, that does not give space or reason for more US hatred.
What I see in the White House is bravado and denial. I am not calling for an immediate withdrawal of American troops. I am asking for an honest assessment and a plan built on that
At least if this article is true SOMEONE is looking at things as they are, not as the propaganda machine wants us to think
"Are there any functioning "democracies" in the world? I don't know of any"
America is not a democracy? News to me.
I am aghast at your outrageous stupidity.
So, you're saying that rape cells, mass graveyards, torture, and living under a fascist dictatorship with all the terror and hell that entails is better than a republic?
You're insane. Outrageously insane or ignorant to a degree that is inconceivable. Stop Posting.
You are also calling for a isolationist policy which never works..
"Do we really need to question their nationalism any further"
yes. the whole purpose of the mission is dependant upon it. lip service to nationality doesnt do the trick. the the article is making a case that democracy is not in the offing and the best we can hope for is a framework where democracy may, some time in the future develop. for now, be happy with an islamic republic. see my post #31. if there were truly an "iraqism", all would want a government which reflects the needs and interests of all the parties without favoring anyone faction. the system of leadership selection would determine who is the dominant party. religious factionalism and peoples who relate more to smaller centers of power such as a the local or regional shiekh or ayatollah doesnt bode well for democratic republicanism. what you are likely seeing is people wanting to be police because its a job that pays, risk or no risk. yes, they have a common interest in peace and tranquility but only if their faction gets to set the rules. western democratic government is the best form of govt for people who respect each others rights. for those who have no tradition of respecting other's rights but has a tradition of dominating others by class, tribe and religious faction the half and half solution may be the only possible outcome, at least for now. maybe you will be right one day. whether you live long enough to see it, that is the question.
Irrelevant. No one has been sent who didn't have some idea that they might have to go. This is a VOLUNTEER force. Those who are from the Reserves may not like that their day to day lives have changed considerably, but they signed up for that, too, and have been happily collecting their reservist pay from the military up to the point where they WERE needed.
Are you suggesting the troops don't believe in their mission? Or that we should undermine them from home?
I guess the first would be marginally better, but it's not something I believe to be true.
Of course I meant Kuwait, but you knew what I meant.
Post-WWII Japan, and the European continent would disagree with you. This all has to do with the concept of preemption...and actually...preemption has nothing to do with our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan because of events on 9/11/2001. REMEMBER THAT? (of course, if you have gotten drunk on the leftist Kool-Aid about, how, all of a sudden, Iraq has NEVER had any ties with terrorism or Al-Queda since Republicans got into office....you'll discount that) but, at any rate, preemption would have saved lives (in retrospect) in 1939 Germany and Japan, 1947 USSR, Korea, Vietnam, and China. (MacArthur was right BTW.) and its saving American lives now. At any rate...doing nothing is never a solution. If terrorism is going to exist in this world...I'd rather it happen in the desert of Iraq where the terrorist are fighting soldiers with superior discipline and superior firepower...instead of, say seeing my son blown to pieces from a car bomb in a local mall parking lot.
Heh. It's Bay, of course!
They didn't need terrorists to kill them; Saddam and his people were doing a marvelous job of that themselves.
They had electricity,fuel and jobs.
Ummm, not to the degree they do now. Have you been paying attention?
For liberals, history begins when they wake up in the morning.
You're overly pessimistic...
I pointed out that Iraqis are joining their military, their police force, and espousing opinions that indicate a strong sense of national identity, yet you seem bent on believing that they consider themselves a province of a nonexistent caliphate. The evidence to the contrary of your opinion is glaring, and you refuse to recognize that only a minority of Iraqis believe in the extremist version of Islam.
You would of course argue that all believers of Islam are extremists, and to a point you may be right. But not all believers of Islam fully subscribe to all the tenets of their faith. Many ignore the extremist and violent tenets because those beliefs are decidedly uncomfortable for anybody who wants to live a peaceful and hopefully prosperous life.
The evidence is there if you're willing to really look beyond the Muslim veil and see that they are really just people, pretty much like you and me. The fact that they are mostly dominated by a violent and aggressive religion is more reason to hope that our mission over there succeeds in spades. Iraq was a mostly oppressive, mostly secular country, with the clerics holding very little political power. Iraq today is somewhat less secular than while under Saddam, but it displays a variety of religious thought that would be impossible elsewhere... even here in the U.S.
From the forge of Iraq, I'm hoping a new emphasis on the less violent aspects of Islam will emerge, with a greater degree of tolerance and recognition of human rights, regardless of race, creed, or gender.
As for Iraq as a nation, I think you're set on imagining they are not nationalistic, even as the strong nationalistic impulse drives large numbers of Iraqis into dangerous positions in their security forces. The very act of waiting in line at a police recruiting center is dangerous, yet there are long lines. When interviewed, many voice patriotic sentiments. They want to fight for Iraq, and they'll fight the Iraqi and foreign terrorists who want to subjugate and destroy their fledgling democracy. If that isn't nationalism, I don't know what is.
Hello!!!!
Are you series?????
This is FreeRepublic you are on.
Not Bartcop / Moveon etc... different login, different site.
"They did not have Fundamentalist terrorists running through their streets killing innocent men , women and children.They had electricity,fuel and jobs .
When this new "democracy" comes into being the women will be chattel property with few if any rights."
Your (and brigadier's) stealthlike tenure on this board is likely the only reason that I cannot get in before the deserved zot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.