“After six months in Iraq, this is what I have found”
My wife and I know several families who have sons and brothers serving in Iraq, who we pray for specifically each and every night. This morning the mother of one of those soldiers forwarded to us the following poignant message from her son, and gave me permission to share it with all of you:
The war in Iraq has been unpopular not because of the massive expense or the loss of American lives. It has been unpopular not because of the constant criticism of a political left more interested in the advancement of their domestic agenda than in a favorable outcome to the War on Terror. It is unpopular instead because in the Western psyche a few million men in dishdashas and women in veils do not equate to a few million actual PEOPLE.
If Americans and Europeans truly believed that Iraqis deserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and that, like so many of our ancestors, Iraqis are tired, poor, and yearning to breathe free, this war would become the calling of our time, not the tool of career politicians and political opportunists. The real tragedy is that their personal political gains will come at the cost of human lives. The lives of men I know, with whom I talk daily, with whom I laugh and drink chai. And we in the West will not care because Iraqis don’t look like us, worship our God, or speak our languages, and those dishdashas make the men look like they’re wearing dresses.
I have spent the last six months in Iraq. I have sat and talked with Iraqis daily, both Sunni and Shia. I have heard what they want for themselves and for their children. I have seen the look of fear in their eyes when I mention that American troops may leave. For countless hours I have worked with them side by side and heard their concerns and ideas for the future. I have found that they want to live without the terror of masked men coming to take their fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters to be tortured and beheaded on propaganda videos by Al Qaeda and other extremist groups. I have found that they wish to govern their own affairs without the constant fear of a despotic government imprisoning them because of their religious and political affiliations. I have found that they want freedom to build a better life for themselves and for their children. Are these not the same rights we demand for ourselves? We are no different. If these basic rights were denied us, would we not ask the nations of the world to aid us in our struggle to regain them?
Instead of seeing support and compassion from the people of America and Europe, the Iraqis see us angrily protesting “American Imperialism.” They hear a presidential candidate saying that our part in their fight for basic human rights was a waste of America’s time, that their lives were not worth sacrificing ours. In our probable choice of a president and in our opinion polls we are telling the peaceful majority of Iraqis that they are not worthy of our quality of life, our life expectancy, or the natural rights of man. We tell them every day that in our eyes they are not human beings. What does that make us?




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top58 Comments to ““After six months in Iraq, this is what I have found””
The war in Iraq was never about the people living there.
Hussein had been in power since 1976 and we never gave them a second thought.
The war was supported by the utterly vile Bush and the equally vile Neocons.
Bush wanted the war to avenge and/or show up his father for not taking about Hussein during the First Iraq War.
The Neocons wanted to take out an enemy of Israel.
Report comment to moderator
Whew! Surprised to see that here! Isn’t this what Palin would call anti-American? Well it’s not, is it! Good for you!
So if WORLD actually got its own international correspondents on the ground instead of just filtering AP, could we expect to see this same kind of story more frequently?
Report comment to moderator
It’s all true, if a little maudlin. FWIW, it’s also true that Muslims, Sunni and Shia, have it as an article of faith that we are essentially inhuman, Dar al-Harb.
Report comment to moderator
It’s been years since we’ve invaded. The Iraqis have been breathing freedom for years as well. If they like it so much, they should be chomping at the bit to secure their own future, freedom and prosperity. They are finally taking matters into their own hands, but at a maddeningly slow pace.
And I agree with Stubob that it is a bit maudlin. There are millions of people all over the world suffering from oppresion, hunger or despotic rulers. It’s not our job to free them. Unless, of course, their plight aligns with our pressing national security needs. If not, they are on their own. We are not the world’s policeman.
Report comment to moderator
We are not the world’s policeman.
Good thing we didn’t tell that to the Jews being exterminated by the Nazis during WWII!
Report comment to moderator
To Outkast
Thanks for your measured response.
Millions of black people have been killed in Africa in the last 25 years.
Have you ever suggested the U.S. invade that continent to prevent another Holocaust?
Report comment to moderator
At least Bush is on the right side.
Report comment to moderator
Let’s hope against all hope and actually believe Iraq turns into a livable country thanks to the bumbling Bush.
There are 1.2 billion Islamic people in the world and 25 million of them live in Iraq.
1.175 billion Islamic people to go.
Report comment to moderator
For Nick Peters and Lester: It sounds like the two of you have a lot of experience in Iraq; why we invaded and why we have remained. I would like to hear about your time there on the ground and the impressions you formed while living with the Iraqis.
Report comment to moderator
I’m truly glad for those Iraqis whose quality of life has improved. But if you’re going to take the stance that it’s our job to provide all people with the freedom and hope that we enjoy, then I’m afraid we have greatly failed. As Nick has pointed out, there are billions of people all over the world who are living under some sort of bondage. Is it our job to set them free? It appears to only be the case when it benefits us.
I have great respect for the soldier who wrote this message, but I’m afraid his perspective is a bit narrow. Again, I think we are doing some good work in Iraq, but that’s not why we went over there.
Report comment to moderator
To Nitrobob
You got me. I admit I have spent as much time in Iraq as Bush did before he decided to invade the country.
Bush has spent some time in Iraq after his Solomon-like decision to invade. Under total security and secrecy he spent a few hours in Iraq the few times he went. Of course he was smart enough to get out of the country before the Iraqis people he “liberated” realized he was there.
Strange that you are more interested in ridiculing me for not spending any time in Iraq that you are in defending the war.
Report comment to moderator
Outkast #5,
We didn’t get involved in WWII to save the Jews. We did so because it was in our best interests. If it were all about the Jews, we would have jumped in earlier.
I’m not trying to say that the US are the bad guys, but we’re not all that noble either. Just like every other country, we are looking out for ourselves first and foremost.
Report comment to moderator
Wow, I am just so incredibly, incredibly moved.
[/sarcasm]
So now we’re dusting off the tired old “we’re over there for their freedom” justification, are we? Never thought I’d hear that one again.
Look. I will accept this premise for our continued presence in Iraq — that the people of politically free nations have some kind of moral obligation to lay down their lives to politically liberate others — on one condition: That the US adopt an official policy whereby military men and women who volunteered to defend their own nation be given the chance to opt out when it comes to laying down their lives to “liberate” the people of other nations.
Unfortunately, volunteering for the first has long been conflated with a moral and legal obligation to do the second.
Alternatively, we could simply modify the oath of enlistment to
Now, I suspect that if we thus modified the enlistment oath, enlistments would drop precipitously. Which is why the US military has to operate by bait-and-switch: “Look, we know you volunteered out of a genuine, patriotic desire to defend your country. But we have some other genuinely ‘patriotic’ work for you to do, liberating the people of … .”
Which leads me to my second point: Political freedom is not some commodity that can be delivered by airlift or at the muzzle of an M-16 — or even by having a certain number of well-intentioned Americans sacrifice life and limb.
Genuine political liberty first requires — requires — spiritual liberty, which is attained by Christ’s righteousness alone:
Even our nation’s Founders understood this principle:
If you want to deal death and destruction overseas in hopes of politically liberating foreigners, go ahead, have at it.
But how dare you demand it from Americans who’ve volunteered to defend America and Americans?
Report comment to moderator
Just because we cannot save everyone in the world, and every nation cannot be free because of us, does that mean we should not try and help where we can? Since we can’t do it all, we should do nothing?
I see where that logic gets us. Since I can’t be a millionaire, I may as well quit working altogther. Until such time I can reach my goal of being a millionaire, at least.
Report comment to moderator
Genuine lasting change in Iraq will be generational. The current adults will have to all die off and the youths will have to grow up completely socialized to a non-authoritarian way of life. Standing patiently alongside the Iraqi civilian leadership to help this happen will not come cheaply. Sooner or later we will have to de-Americanize this war if for no other reason than cost. If we de-Americanize before the Iraqis are fully ready to have the training wheels removed, I shudder to think of the outcome.
Finally, if anyone believes western-style democracy means purging any and all references to theistic beliefs from govt policy, they will always be disappointed with Iraq. If freedom of religious thought and practice are an absolute prereq to true freedom, Iraq will always measure up short
Report comment to moderator
OUTKAST (5): Good thing we didn’t tell that to the Jews being exterminated by the Nazis during WWII!
FRANK: We didn’t go to war with Germany because of the Holocaust. They declared war on us.
After we declared war on Japan.
After they attacked Pearl Harbor.
IOW, it was about national defense, not policing the world.
Report comment to moderator
Frank, the John Adams quote should be carved into the walls of every legislature (state and federal). No truer grasp of reality was never spoken.
Report comment to moderator
Nonsense only half OF America is bigoted and discriminating like the writer of this article – The left part. The rest of us long ago gave up this pettiness and realize that people, who govern themselves in a democratically inspired representative way, do not attack their neighbors or anyone else and they are then willing as we are to be a positive force in the world where good defeats evil.
The left doesn’t like anyone unless they are exactly like them. Arabs, Muslims and anyone else in the world falls into that category.
Report comment to moderator
Frank, do you think had Hitler not declared war on the USA that the USA would have been neutral in his war against the UK, the USSR?
You probably would have attended Charles Lindbergh rallies, no?
Report comment to moderator
Oh, and I’ll remind you of the timely words of another “John Adams.” (Go ahead, read it. It’s good for you. Besides, the Founders rarely spoke in sound bites … ):
should say – like the writer of this article describes – the left part….
Report comment to moderator
SAWGUNNER (19): Frank, do you think had Hitler not declared war on the USA that the USA would have been neutral in his war against the UK, the USSR?
FRANK: I have no idea what would have happend, nor would I hazard a guess.
SAWGUNNER (19): You probably would have attended Charles Lindbergh rallies, no?
FRANK: Had I the same convictions I have now, yup.
You betcha.
In a heartbeat.
Report comment to moderator
Thankfully, a couple of posters reminded (or informed) Outkast why we entered World War II. The Jews were being exterminated for a couple of years before Japan attacked us and declared war on us, prompting Germany to also declare war on us.
Outkast just likes to get a rise out of certain posters, rather than contribute to a meaningful debate.
Nitobob – so my opinions are null and void because I haven’t lived among the Iraqis? Wow, that’s some logic. I guess no one can have an opinion unless they’ve actually been there. So I guess all those Republicans who lambasted Clinton for getting involved with Serbia were wrong – WRONG – because they hadn’t spent any time there.
That’s some great analysis.
Report comment to moderator
Iraq over a period of decades or centuries may develop a nominal type of democracy.
But they will never, ever accept democracy impose on them at the end of a rifle.
And they will never, ever accept democracy from a predominately Christian country (USA) and the blind support of Israel to boot.
Report comment to moderator
Llama,
I will also remind you and those of your ilk that the opposition to this war is not comprised solely of “the left.” There are plenty of principled conservatives (a.k.a. “constitutionalists”) who oppose it as well.
My personal favorite is one few people have heard about:
Andrew Bacevich.
Google him Llama.
Read him.
Then call him a “leftist.” I dare you.
Report comment to moderator
Nick (11) it wasn’t meant to ridicule, it was simply a way to determine your experience in this part of the world, since with time, we are hearing from more and more folks who have actually been on the ground.
I was at a conference yesterday where an Army Colonel and a Marine Corps Colonel each spoke of recent tours in Iraq. I thought they would focus on the lethality of their weapons (since that was the theme of the conference), but instead, their presentations were very similar to the post Mickey cited above. The Army colonel recalled how on the first day of his tour in Diyala province, he held a 5 year old girl in his arms who had just been shot in the face; simply because she was the governor’s daughter and Al Qaeda therefore, once again targeted the innocent. The Marine showed pictures of another little girl whose body had been half burned; not because of a U.S. missile strike, but from brushing up against a kerosene heater in pajamas that were long ago banned in the U.S. Did they need to help her? No, but they took her in anyway, healed her wounds and probably saved a child who have died under normal circumstances… at least in present day Iraq.
I am always surprised how the themes of the author’s are quickly twisted from their original intent. The blogs thus far have focused on politicians and foreign policy, yet the post is actually about human-to-human relationships. Can we save the world’s ills? Of course not, but we have and can continue to make a huge difference in various places. What you read in the news is on the political level. What truly matters is on the personal level. When you stand before God one day, will He question your political views? I think he will probably be more interested in how you treated folks on a day-to-day basis.
It is a shame that so many in this country cannot comprehend the multi-dimensions of a U.S. soldier, sailor, airman or marine. We think of them as killing machines, yet they are the best and most compassionate emissaries who have ever lived. To follow Adams advice is self-serving, short-sighted and quite frankly, bigoted against anyone who is not an American. It is flawed logic to say that since we cannot solve all the world’s problems, we should therefore solve none. Jesus couldn’t reach everyone in the three years of ministry given to him, but look what happened from the people whom he did touch. We fall short if we don’t do the same.
Report comment to moderator
To Nitrobob
I hope you remember the reason we went into Iraq. The despicable Bush said Hussein had WMDs’ and had connections to 9/11.
Neither one was true. So what to do? Simple, change the rationale to a humanitarian effort.
You talk about the innocent people killed by Al Qaeda. How many innocent people has the U.S. killed? We don’t even bother to count (or estimate) the number anymore. Strange since we (supposedly) were so worried about the way Hussein treated them.
Report comment to moderator
Gosh Nick, it sounds like you are a supporter or member of Radical Islam. The number of people killed by the U.S. is a small fraction of those Iraqis killed by their former dictator – Hussein. And the vast majority of those were Al Qaeda, you know, the guys who indiscriminately kill women and children. The real measure is who are the Iraqis fighting now…oh yeah, Al Qaeda.
H
Report comment to moderator
“have great respect for the soldier who wrote this message, but I’m afraid his perspective is a bit narrow.” Graceland
What’s narrow is not wanting to see other people have what you take for granted. But I will agree that freedom seems to be the exception rather than the rule throughout human history. Why, it even appears that the lemmings in our very own society are willing to sacrifice their freedom to live in a nanny state. So let’s go ahead and liberate the Iraqi people so they can free us after the Left has finished destroying our liberty.
Report comment to moderator
The son serving in Iraq wrote: “And we in the West will not care because Iraqis don’t look like us, worship our God, or speak our languages, and those dishdashas make the men look like they’re wearing dresses.”
_____
This prejudicial attitude applies to those who DID NOT and DO NOT want to stand with the Iraqis or stand for their progress toward freedom. This applies to those calling for our retreat.
Report comment to moderator
Nick at #1 completely misunderstands the mission of the war in Iraq, due, I think, to his intense (self-stated and mind-numbing) loathing for President Bush.
Report comment to moderator
To Joel
My mind numbing loathing for Bush? In a few months Bush will start to make millions off the Iraq War by giving “tough on terrorism” speeches across the country.
This doesn’t even count the millions (billions?) Bush’s enablers, (Halliburton as one example) have made off this war.
If anything I am kind to that loathsome man.
Report comment to moderator
What’s narrow is not wanting to see other people have what you take for granted.
I’d love for everyone to have the freedom that we enjoy, but is it our military’s obligation to see that everyone in the world is free? Of course not.
Look, if our country (in whatever form) is doing good in the world, great. But that is NOT the issue in regards to the Iraq war. Yes, we are doing some good things over there, but that was not our mission. We can debate all day about whether we SHOULD have gone to Iraq in the first place, and you can debate about the reason(s) we went over there, but you will have a really hard time arguing that our purpose from the beginning was humanitarian.
If you feel that we should use our military for humanitarian purposes, fine, but that’s a separate debate. And if you go that route, I’m curious to know the extent. I guess we could just raise taxes even more so that we can employ our freedom-fighting military for more endeavors, but I’d prefer that my tax dollars go towards a military that is protecting the homeland.
Report comment to moderator
Graceland (33) I think you make a good argument, but I still believe most of our military missions in this post-modern world are at their roots, humanitarian (whether we want to admit it or not). God has a way of bringing about good things even when we do our best to mess it up.
Here are a few facts to support my argument of humanitarianism.
1. Did you know Hussein considered the Gulf War (Desert Storm 1991) as a resounding victory? Even though the Coalition dessimated his fighting forces, he thought himself the winner simply because he was still in power. He then went on to massacre hundreds of thousands of Shi’as in the south and Kurds in the north for fear of an uprising.
2. Did you know Chemical Ali had himself videotaped torturing and executing those same Shi’as and Kurds in order to appease Hussein? And that Husseins more cojent and competent leaders could never speak up against these practices because they and their families would be executed?
3. Did you know Hussein was more concerned about an internal uprising before the 2003 invasion than invasion by the U.S. forces? The man was a supreme terrorist – or one who strikes terror in his own countrymen. Yes, I think the U.S. invasion was ultimately a humanitarian one, although we have tried to mess things up along the way. I also believe God will ultimately turn evil into to good, but perhaps I am a fool in this world.
I gotta quick blogging, but this post hits too close to home!
Report comment to moderator
At least Bush is on the right side.
Lucky for the wrong side – whoever that is.
Report comment to moderator
To Nitrobob
Who was the American President was Hussein was doing those terrible things?
Now I remember, it was Bush’s father. Did Bush Jr. criticize his father for not stopping Hussein during that time period?
Let me try this one more time:
The Iraq War wasn’t meant to be a humanitarian effort. Bush and his minions just moved the goalpost after they didn’t find any WMDs’.
Report comment to moderator
NitroBob,
You are right–there were a lot of problems with Hussein, and I believe it was right to remove him from power. But I think the main reasons were that he ignored sanctions placed on him after the Gulf War, sought to acquire WMDs (according to intelligence at the time), and had shown the capability and willingness to slaughter masses of people.
Actually, we should have taken him out long before 9/11.
Report comment to moderator
I am glad that the soldier is so taken with freedom and the natural rights of man. This bodes well for the Republic. I do think he mistakes his political convictions for his philosophical ones, however.
He’s certainly entitled to his viewpoint, but the fact of his service does not render his opinions especially valuable. The point for questioning the policy of this administration, for readjusting our policy going forward, lies in the conviction that military force is insufficient to resolve the so-called “Global War on Terror.” We continue to need to address all our national needs. GWOT has fundamentally distorted our strategic decision making.
Report comment to moderator
To Graceland
What are the rules for attacking another country?
Let’s accept the fact Bush honestly believed Hussein had WMDs’.
So one country can attack another because they don’t like the weapons they have? I am sure Russia doesn’t like a US “ally” in the Middle East, Israel having WMDs’.
So following Bush’s “logic” should Russia be allowed to attack Israel?
Report comment to moderator
I have to agree with Graceland that it is not our military’s obligation to fight the battle for freedom in every country. If you really want freedom, you’ll fight for it. I, of course, am not opposed to sending assistance, but no one can really hand you your freedom. I think we did attempt this in Iraq, and in many ways these people were simply not ready for it. We handed the Iraqis a golden opportunity, and to this day, I just don’t see them getting on the stick and putting in the effort. They hate each other and live for that Islamic revenge so intensely that the idea of working together is totally foreign to them.
Report comment to moderator
From the original thread: “And we in the West will not care because Iraqis don’t look like us, worship our God, or speak our languages, and those dishdashas make the men look like they’re wearing dresses.”
Whatever the reasons for going into Iraq, I was happy when I saw those purple thumbs because I thought here was a real opportunity for these people to move into the 21st century, and they could bring the rest of their area along with them. And maybe we’ve soured on the war because we just don’t think these people appreciate what was done for them. I thought they would have seized the opportunity. They really haven’t done that.
Report comment to moderator
Nick:
Only if you subscribe to the moral equivalency argument that nukes in the hands of Isreal is the same as nukes in the hands of Iran. Years ago I remember the Left had trouble making moral distinctions between the US and the Soviet Union (under communism).
Report comment to moderator
Nick,
You must have misunderstood me. You make it sound as if I suggested that all it takes is for a country to have big weapons and then we can attack them.
The major issue for me in this is the Gulf War and the implications of that victory. Perhaps we shouldn’t have let Sadam return to his country–I’m not sure. But the fact is that if we (the US and UN) are going to place sanctions on someone as a result of a war, we had better back those up.
And please hear this–I didn’t say I thought the Iraq war should have been fought like it has. I said Sadam should have been removed from power, or just never allowed to retain power. I’ll be honest, I don’t know exactly how that should have happened, and fortunately for all of us I didn’t have to make that call.
Report comment to moderator
I thought they would have seized the opportunity. They really haven’t done that.
I feel the same way. I guess I foolishly thought they would have made more progress by now.
I used to agree with Bush and McCain that setting a timetable for withdrawal is a bad idea, but I’m starting to think that our open-ended agreement to stay and help out in Iraq is part of the problem. What urgency do the Iraqis have to get up to speed? Perhaps what they need is an ultimatum. I’m not sure.
Report comment to moderator
To Graceland
I did not misunderstand you at all. In post #43 you mentioned Saddam should have been removed from power.
But who gets to decide if another sovereign country’s leader should remain in power? A country 6,000 miles away from Iraq like the U.S.?
To BT
Moral equivalency according to who? I assume you are aware Israel has inflicted far, far, more destruction on their enemies than vice-versa. While at the same time being portrayed as the victim by the U.S. media.
I would love to see you explain to the Islamic world (on terms they will accept) that Israel can have WMDs’ but they cannot.
Why? Because the U.S. said so.
Report comment to moderator
But who gets to decide if another sovereign country’s leader should remain in power?
I know you won’t like this answer, but it depends. If that sovereign country’s leader has previously invaded another country, lost a war, and had sanctions placed on it as a result of said war, then I’d say whoever defeated that country and placed the sanctions on it has every right to uphold the arrangement.
But like I said before, perhaps the US should have just removed Sadam from power after the Gulf War. They had every right to do that.
Report comment to moderator
To Graceland
You and I agree. I didn’t like your response.
So we can invade Iraq because Hussein “invaded another country” (your words)? Can Russia or China invade the U.S. because we invaded Iraq?
No one in this country cared that Hussein invaded Kuwait. We just cared that he was getting his hands on too much of Middle Eastern oil.
Report comment to moderator
I read NJ Lawyer at #41 and I think she makes good sense.
I will moderate my comment at #30 about the comment made by the son who is serving in Iraq. With respect for him, I think I disagree that either side is really making their decisions based on the observations that “Iraqis don’t look like us, worship our God, or speak our languages…”
I think deeper and nobler motives are actually at play, certainly in many on the Right and also by many on the Left. I do think it was the right thing to do to depose Saddam and act on the threat that we (Dems and Repubs alike) fully believed that he posed and to deal with his support for terrorism all over the Middle East and his firing on our planes and his failure to measure up to the terms of the treaty he signed when he lost the Gulf War. We could not have been taken seriously anywhere had we not deposed Saddam.
And most of all, I am proud of us for not just coldly abandoning Iraq after we accomplished our mission to depose Saddam.
Report comment to moderator
No one in this country cared that Hussein invaded Kuwait.
Probably true.
We just cared that he was getting his hands on too much of Middle Eastern oil.
Probably also true. But the fact remains that Kuwait is an ally of ours, so we became engaged in a war with Sadam. We won. Therefore, we get to set the rules.
If in the next couple months Bush invades Canada to steal their hockey pucks, and Russia comes to their aid, we would find ourselves at war with Russia. And if Russia were to defeat us, they get to set the rules. They could just tell us to go home and ask that we stop picking on other countries. They could send us back home and place sanctions on us, even squash our national hockey program. They might even remove Bush from power, due to a history of high-checking and fighting. Whatever the case, if we were to defy the arrangement from our defeat to Russia, we should expect them to pay us another visit.
Report comment to moderator
Woo-hoo!
Preach it, soldier.
Cuts right down to it.
Report comment to moderator
Frankie, I said half of America is bigoted and discriminating. There are those on the right who are just stupid. Which one are you again? I forgot to thank you for leaving Phoenix, the air has been less foul for some reason too
Report comment to moderator
How llame-a.
Report comment to moderator
This is the essential difference between 18-19th Century colonialism and the imperialist efforts of the super powers in the 20th Century. The former usually sent missionaries first, where the latter have sent the army. Rev. Roger Wagner
Frank @ 13: Whether such 20th century efforts can be characterized as imperialistic is arguable, but another big difference is the missionary zeal of the colonial era as compared to today. Where are today’s missionaries, and how can we restore the passion of that earlier era?
Report comment to moderator
LLAMA (51): Frankie, I said half of America is bigoted and discriminating.
FRANK: Name’s Frank. “Frankie” is my son.
LLAMA (51): There are those on the right who are just stupid [my ital - F].
FRANK: So, have you actually listened to/read Bacevich?
Or do you just automatically resort to name-calling for any and all who disagree?
Report comment to moderator
Mickey:
The unfortunate reality in Western politics, especially on the fringes, is the politics of personal destruction. This politicking requires a myopia that results in bigotry. Ever since 9-11, there has been a fringe that claimed the attacks were the work of the current administration, if not directly then indirectly. The boogiemen of this era have been, BUSHCO, Halliburton, Big Oil, Cheney, Rumsfeld, The Jews, et al. Mickey, there cannot be any noble intention because the players are all pure evil. Thus, to some people it was never about freedom for an oppressed people. That being the case, we need not look upon them as REAL Persons.
Disturbingly, these cartoonish debates are rarely criticized. Indeed, some in political power reach into the bag of lunacy for a small but effective tool shaped by the myopic bigots to use for power grabbing purposes. The Iraqis are real people who want freedom from tyranny whether it was Saddam or is the current death squads. The west had a political opportunity to take out a know supporter of world terrorism (Saddam) and did so. Mistakes were made, but that does not mean we abandon a people.
Report comment to moderator
Mac: I’ll see your pantheon of evil and raise you. “Welfare Queens”, “Predatory Teens”, “Islamofascists”, “Marxists”, “Socialists”, “ACORN”, “Black Liberation Theologists”, “Bell Curve”, “Gay agenda”, whack-jobs,
“peaceniks”—the list goes on and on. If anyone has waged a politics of attack and dehumanization it is the Right with it’s everlasting list of those who are Opposed to the American Way of Life and are Coming to Take Your Back 40, your Guns or your Home away. Oh, I forgot the Rockefeller Foundation, the ACLU and the Trilateral Commission. Now THERE’s an Axis of Evil!
Report comment to moderator
“Welfare Queens”, “Predatory Teens”, “Islamofascists”, “Marxists”, “Socialists”, “ACORN”, “Black Liberation Theologists”, “Bell Curve”, “Gay agenda”, whack-jobs,
“peaceniks”
And exactly how does this litany of names fit into the discussion of Iraq? I am not trying to have a contest. My point is that fringe elements place the destruction of the WTC on the groups I named thus any involvement in middle east terrorist hunting is illegitimate. Because of this line of thought, the people in Iraq were not really suffering at extremists’ hands because the extremism was ginned up by the USA.
The inability to face reality without caricature is problematic. Bigotry instead of reason seems to inform our politics. This is wrong.
BTW it’s the CFR, Trilaterals and Bilderbergers as the fringe rightwing axis of evil
Report comment to moderator
Having finally had an opportunity to read through this thread, I also feel the need to give some of the posters on this thread a refresher in recent history:
In the first Gulf War under George Bush Senior, he was dealing with a coalition of many countries against Saddam Hussein. It was not only Kuwait who wanted US aid in dealing with Saddam’s march into Kuwait. The rest of Saddam’s neighbors were not comfortable with a bully who had no qualms about invading neighbors. The goal never was to take Saddam out of power, it was to contain him and render him powerless against his neighbors. If the goal had been to remove Saddam from power, (as the US would have liked), there never would have been a coalition. The main reason for leaving Saddam in place was because his ouster would have created a power vacuum into which every one of Saddam’s neighbors would have been only to willing to rush in to fill, if only for the purpose of controlling so much of the world’s supply of oil. (At the time, Europe was consuming more oil than the US from That part of the world, and they backed the coalition because it was about their economy.) Besides Saddam’s neighbors, there were radicals on the fringe who would have liked to have made Iraq a base of terrorist operations, and don’t forget the Kurds who only wanted their own homeland and none of the neighbors wanted a Kurdish sovereign power, ironic, since they have been the most stable group in that part of the world. Even they have their own radical faction, but they were more under control, and more reactove than proactive.
Leaving Saddam Hussein in place to bully his own people and make under the table trade agreements with the likes of France and Russia, all the while thumbing his nose at the UN sanctions imposed upon him was a bitter pill for the US to swallow, and many of the folks here in the US – politicians and private citizens alike viewed it as a military defeat that Saddam was left in place. But it was what was best for the region, although not for the people of Iraq.
When George W Bush was elected, he and his advisors, Cheney and Rumsfeld had a score to settle and they sold himm this bill of goods. While the US had a legitimate reason to go into Afghanistan, we did not have a legitimate reason to invade Iraq. It was the wrong war at the arong time. I do think, that day would still have arrived on George BW. Bush’s watch – he just jumped the gun. This time it was the US without the large coalition there was the last time around, and yet we drove on. Nobody took into consideration the power vacuum that was created by Saddam’s ouster, and this power vacuum is still what we are dealing with.
Here is the problem: We can decry the illegality of this ill-advised war, but the facts remain that either Obama or McCain is going to inherit the mess created by the bush administration (and endorsed, I might add by BOTH sides of the aisle). We need to be cautious about how we go about cleaning up the mess. Cutting and running is not the answer, but we do need to extricate ourselves as painlessly as possible for ourselves and also for the world. We have some resopnsibility to deal with and help the world deal with this situation of our making. It ias LONG PAST time to play the blame game. It is time to roll up our sleeves and set partisanship aside and deal with it responsibly. So let’s all get on board to get it fixed well and right.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!