Poll - war in Iraq

[Yerda]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-20-bloggers_x.htm
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=65409&topic=anticapitalism&results_offset=90
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/08/04/sprj.irq.media/
http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2004/Aug/31-229824.html
There are plenty of reasons to be sonvinced that the people of Iraq are better off with their new freedoms. Why are you so set on convincing yourself and anyone that will listen, that we have made life worse for these people. It simply isn't true.

No, not at all.

They are now free, for instance, to decorate the interior of police stations...with their inards. Arms (and legs) are now free to fly hundreds of yards from their shoulders. Children are free to live (in starvation, free of electricity or water) without parents.

Enough liberal hogwash, now for the typical cherry picking.

From the Indymedia link:

"I can't wait to work in a Nike shoe factory," said al-Shaeff's wife. "Sure, I'll have to wear a facial covering, as demanded by Islamic law, and I'll be paid very low wages, wages so low it may feel like slavery... But I'll be free! I'll be free from the horrors of Saddam Hussein!"

"I can't believe the Americans did all of this for us," said al-Shaeff's oldest son, Sudra, age seven. "Thanks to the Americans, I am now free to work in dangerous conditions for extremely low pay. Thank you George W. Bush!"

Other Baghdad residents were not as optimistic as Mr. al-Saeff or his family "Thanks a lot, America! We liked Saddam more than [Gap-Old Navy president] Paul Pressler. He was a lot less oppressive." said twenty-seven year-old Ahnra Ben Suden.

....errr...did you read those links?

 

[Neo-Logic]

This is change for the better; a step towards their freedom. All things has to start small and work their way up. Insurgents and resistance from those oppose freedom for the people simply because they're losing their spot in the food chain of opression and dictatorship government shouldn't hinder the progress of the Iraqi people. Some can cherrypick using the statements from those who didn't fully gain from the newfound freedom and choose to completely ignore the positive changes made, but this still doesn't matter because for there to be peace, or in this case freedom, there has to be war. Change is hard, but change in this case is a progress and a change for the better. Even with all the fighting and hardships that the Iraqi face at this point, they at least have the chance to become free.

 

[greatcalgarian]

Did not support war but should finish what we started

Finish what we started? What is that to be finished? Consolidate a puppet government working in a dictatorial way but clothed in the banner of democratically elected, and suppressed all opposition voices?

Why not say undone what we have started, pay compensation to the families of all those poor Iraqi killed, and pay for all damages done by the war? In the first place, did more than 50% of the Iraqi people (since US practice democracy and is going in to teach Iraqi what democracy is) invited the US-UK to go in to create the present situation?

I would even consider the option "Did not support war and want out" to be not 100% morally right.

 

[greatcalgarian]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-20-bloggers_x.htm
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=65409&topic=anticapitalism&results_offset=90
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/08/04/sprj.irq.media/
http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive/2004/Aug/31-229824.html
There are plenty of reasons to be sonvinced that the people of Iraq are better off with their new freedoms. Why are you so set on convincing yourself and anyone that will listen, that we have made life worse for these people. It simply isn't true.

Let us all take the next plane out and fly to Bagdad and live there for a year to talk to the locals to find out the truth. No point argueing here, and quoting bogg or Western media, as most of us could not read Arabic web pages :biglaugh:

 

[HelpMe]

All things has to start small and work their way up.

the war and new government isn't "small".

Even with all the fighting and hardships that the Iraqi face at this point, they at least have the chance to become free.

of course you mean the universal american view of 'free'?

 

[croak]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]

Where there WMD? At the time of the invasion, no. Could there have been? Absolutely.

I thought an intelligence service as good as the CIA would know if there were any before going to war......

Okay, it seems that Iraq is a hot topic. But let's go back in the past, to another great American blunder. Not a famous one, I'm sure. It's the war in Lebanon. Or actually, 2 wars in Lebanon.

From: http://countrystudies.us/lebanon/104.htm

[/font]

[/font] Before the 1975 Civil War, Lebanon enjoyed generally good official relations with the United States. In large measure, these ties were promoted by the sizable Lebanese-American community. One incident that weakened these relations was the United States role in the 1958 Civil War. At that time, the administration of President Dwight D. Eisenhower dispatched a unit of United States Marines to aid the government of President Shamun. Shamun's regime was under pressure from a part of the Muslim community to strengthen ties to Egypt and Syria, which had just formed the United Arab Republic and were considered by some to be in the "radical Arab" camp. The Marines were never engaged in battle and were withdrawn soon after their arrival. Even so, many Lebanese and other Arab states viewed the United States action as interference in Lebanon's internal affairs.

In the early 1980s, following the worst fighting of the 1975 Civil War, the United States became involved in Lebanon in several ways. On the political level, it sought to bolster the presidency of Amin Jumayyil and to broker a treaty between Lebanon and Israel. On the military level, the United States hoped to keep peace as part of the MNF. On the economic level, the United States planned to assist in Lebanon's reconstruction. These tasks were never completed, however. The United States support for the pro-Jumayyil, Christian brigades of the Lebanese Army during the 1983-84 Mountain War turned into a fiasco. Not only did the United States lose two aircraft to ground fire, but the shelling of Druze and Shia population centers by the U.S.S. New Jersey convinced most Lebanese Muslims that the United States had taken the Christian side. Likewise, by 1984, in the face of renewed fighting, the business of reconstruction became a faint hope. The attacks on the United States embassy and annex, and on the MNF contingent, and the kidnapping of United States citizens eventually forced the administration of President Ronald Reagan to minimize United States involvement in the increasingly ungovernable Lebanese state.[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]

So what's the point of this? Well, mostly to tell the US to stay out of Middle Eastern affairs. You've had two examples of how much the US was welcomed here (Lebanon). The US should be able to learn from this, but apparently, they can't. Oh, I forgot, Saddam was a ruthless dictator. Of course. But I must inquire: has the US ever heard of diplomatic negotiation? To go into more detail, I mean have they ever tried changing the situation diplomatically rather than entering in full force?
[/font][/font]

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Okay, I guess I went kind of off topic.
[/font][/font]

This is truly amazing. Again, where is your proof that the CIA had anything to do with the baathist rise to power in Iraq?

I'm not sure about that, but I have real proof that they supported the Christians in the second Lebanese war. And I'm not so sure, but they may have helped started the war as well. I mean, sending weapons to the Lebanese Army while they knew they were being transferred in turn to the Phalangist militia isn't going to help matters, is it?


Okay, I'm not really in the mood to write a whole book on the topic (there are already books about it) but I hope my reference to the Lebanese war can be connected to the Iraqi war.


And one last thing: You put Saddam in the first place to attack Iran. Then you remove him for attacking Kuwait? You give him WMD. Then you come back to take them? This is quite hypocritical. Yeah, I know, there are years of difference in between. But the US is supposed to know what happens, right? To give an example:


You give a child a gun and teach him how to hunt birds. Then, he shoots a person and kills him. So, you take the gun away and punish him harshly. What is the point of this? The child doesn't know that gun = bird and gun /= people. He just knows you shoot and somehow a bird stops moving. Maybe he should try and see what it does to people.


Sorry if this is incoherent. Or just plain nonsense. But with the situation in Lebanon........


And if you didn't know, Georges Hawi, member of the Communist Party, was killed by a car bomb. Who cares if he was Communist? He was a decent person (unlike Stalin, obviously).

 

[michel]

I am somewhat surprised by the number of did not support, but still 'want out'......

 

[Yerda]

I am somewhat surprised by the number of did not support, but still 'want out'......

Why Michel?

 

[jamaesi]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/...-bloggers_x.htm
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.ph...sults_offset=90
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/m...sprj.irq.media/
http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/Archive.../31-229824.html
There are plenty of reasons to be sonvinced that the people of Iraq are better off with their new freedoms. Why are you so set on convincing yourself and anyone that will listen, that we have made life worse for these people. It simply isn't true.

... You do realize you just shot yourself in the foot with those links? x.x



I love all this talk about Saddam being a bad bad baaaad man and that should be enough to warrant ivading the country and spending billions of dollars. I'm sure y'all are lining up to join the military to fight all the other bad bad baaaad men everywhere! You can go get the bad guys in with Saudi Arabia, most of Africa, North Korea, China... need I go on?

It's sad that this is happening, people have to live in horrid conditions, yes. However, first of all, we have problems in the USA that need fixed. Second, of all the places horrible things are happening, why only help Iraq?

Do you not realize there were never any good intentions for the common good in this anywhere?

How can people listen to Bush, fumbling over his words, change his reasons for war how many times and still support his bull?

Does the Downing Street memo need brought up and beaten again?



If we really wanted to stop terrorism- we would stop supporting it and doing it ourselves. Otherwise it's just pouring more gasoline on the fire.

 

[Neo-Logic]

Why not say undone what we have started, pay compensation to the families of all those poor Iraqi killed, and pay for all damages done by the war?

Pulling out now would have grave consequences. All the effort spent, not to mention the money, on the war effort to bring down Saddam and aid the truely opressed would go to waste if we pulled out now. Even with the number of trained Iraqi policemen, the insurgents and Saddam's cronies would take over just as fast without our continued intervention until things are a bit more stable.

In the first place, did more than 50% of the Iraqi people (since US practice democracy and is going in to teach Iraqi what democracy is) invited the US-UK to go in to create the present situation?

Yea greatcalgarian, we all know the Iraqi people could have freely invited the U.S government to come and aid them when Saddam was still in control.:bonk:

I would even consider the option "Did not support war and want out" to be not 100% morally right.

This would never happen no matter how much you disagree with. The government is not interested in losing the effort and money as well as menpower spent on this war to simply turn back now. The government is not interested in making themselves look weak by pulling out under pressure and difficult circumstances such as the insurgents.

the war and new government isn't "small".

That "small" would be referring to freedom and liberty. :bonk:

of course you mean the universal american view of 'free'?

Keyword there being "free," yes. What is with so much negative/anti-freedom sentiments for the Iraqi. I sure hope those who are talking as if the Iraqi people's freedom and liberty didn't improve are speaking their own opinion and not just absorbing and spitting back out the rebellious stance of "I hate Bush because others hate Bush and I hate war because others hate war."

 

[Sunstone]

I have no love of Bush, and his tall tales of WMD in Iraq persuaded me that an invasion might have merit, for which I feel taken in. But even with my distaste for Bush, I think that now we're in Iraq, we must not leave until we can leave the country stable.

 

[Sunstone]

Looks like some recent polls indicate that US public opinion is turning against the war in Iraq.

 

[greatcalgarian]

Yea greatcalgarian, we all know the Iraqi people could have freely invited the U.S government to come and aid them when Saddam was still in control.:bonk:

That "small" would be referring to freedom and liberty. :bonk:

Keyword there being "free," yes. What is with so much negative/anti-freedom sentiments for the Iraqi. I sure hope those who are talking as if the Iraqi people's freedom and liberty didn't improve are speaking their own opinion and not just absorbing and spitting back out the rebellious stance of "I hate Bush because others hate Bush and I hate war because others hate war."

Please do not bang your head too many times, as you may end up hurting yourself.

To give a very short answer to all your questions, I do not believe US went in to Iraq to remove Sadam, and to build a democratic government there, to give the Iraqis freedom, and a happier life:jiggy: . I believe US went in there to ensure the oil situation is well under US control:149: . I have no quarrel to that if US states openly the true purpose, and Canadian would have joined in gladly. Anyway, it is a matter of how long US need to stay in there to ensure the oil situation to be well under the US. It is a matter of sacrificying some human life to maintain the middle east situation as US would like it to be. So ensuring a good "puppet" government there that can provide stability in the country is the main task the US has to do. Only when that is done then US can slowly reduce the number of forces there.
My postings of 50% Iraqi etc are just sarcastic reflection of my feeling regarding people still believe that US went in there to help the Iraqi. My apology
Remember, Sadam is having a nice time with the French, the Russian, the Germany and the Chinese. If the sanction is lifted, there will be oil flowing to the above four world power leaving US, Canada, and UK with nothing. That is the main reason why Bush went in, and Tony supported it full heartedly. The price we had to pay is around 1000 soldiers a year. It is hard to sell that to the citizen. So US has to come up with story A, failing which go on to story B, and so on.......

 

[greatcalgarian]

And one last thing: You put Saddam in the first place to attack Iran. Then you remove him for attacking Kuwait? You give him WMD. Then you come back to take them? This is quite hypocritical. Yeah, I know, there are years of difference in between. But the US is supposed to know what happens, right? To give an example:
You give a child a gun and teach him how to hunt birds. Then, he shoots a person and kills him. So, you take the gun away and punish him harshly. What is the point of this? The child doesn't know that gun = bird and gun /= people. He just knows you shoot and somehow a bird stops moving. Maybe he should try and see what it does to people.

ArabRearing: I like what you said, but you have to come up with a better analogy. Sadam is not a child. He thought possessing WMD could be used as a ransom like the North Korean currently is using. He misjudged the signal sent by US, or he thought the French, the Russian, the German and the Chinese (actually the bombing of the Chinese embassy by the US has frightened the life out of the Chinese, and they have become very caution in dealing with the US) have enough influence to prevent US from going in to destroy him completely. In fact there is a conspiracy theory that says that Sadam intelligence received CIA approval for going in to Kuwait, that is US approved his going in, which of course could be the case, where US might want to create an excuse to go in to remove him when he has grown up, no longer a child waving the gun at the bird, but an adult waving the gun demanding a ransom.

 

[greatcalgarian]

I have no love of Bush, and his tall tales of WMD in Iraq persuaded me that an invasion might have merit, for which I feel taken in. But even with my distaste for Bush, I think that now we're in Iraq, we must not leave until we can leave the country stable.

Don't worry. US will never leave Iraq to be unstable. That will affect adversely the situation in the neighbouring Arab nations, and oil price will rocket. It is a matter of if US cannot maintain the situation there alone, is US willing to share some of the oil with the French, the Germany, the Russia and the Chinese? If these countries agreed to go into Iraq, that will change the opinion of US citizen, to continue to give support to Bush to finish what he started. Not likely to happen though, so US has to do it alone with the lone supporter UK.

 

[Draka]

I am so glad that I got out of the military before Dubwa got in office. I DID NOT support going to war in the first place and think our sailors and soldiers need to be brought home. The reasons for this stupidly named "War on Terror" were completely bogus reasons that didn't actually exist. It was made up as it went along and the only fact of the matter is that we have lost lives of our brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers, sons and daughter for what? For Dubwa's family grudge? Why should we lose anymore? Out of a sense of obligation to something we never should have gotten into in the first place? None of this had anything to do with 9/11. Never did. We dropped looking for Osama Bin Laden and shifted gears to Iraq and Saddam out of nowhere. We still don't have the culprits responsible for the attacks of 9/11. That is something that bugs me. All this hoo-ha over Iraq and we have completely forgotten the original thing that sent us to that area of the world. We still have not brought to justice the ones responsible for the many deaths of those in the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon. When do those lives get their justice, and when do we have to stop losing more needlessly?

 

[Neo-Logic]

I am so glad that I got out of the military before Dubwa got in office. I DID NOT support going to war in the first place and think our sailors and soldiers need to be brought home. The reasons for this stupidly named "War on Terror" were completely bogus reasons that didn't actually exist. It was made up as it went along and the only fact of the matter is that we have lost lives of our brothers, sisters, mothers, and fathers, sons and daughter for what? For Dubwa's family grudge? Why should we lose anymore? Out of a sense of obligation to something we never should have gotten into in the first place? None of this had anything to do with 9/11. Never did. We dropped looking for Osama Bin Laden and shifted gears to Iraq and Saddam out of nowhere. We still don't have the culprits responsible for the attacks of 9/11. That is something that bugs me. All this hoo-ha over Iraq and we have completely forgotten the original thing that sent us to that area of the world. We still have not brought to justice the ones responsible for the many deaths of those in the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon. When do those lives get their justice, and when do we have to stop losing more needlessly?

Draka, you're right. War on Terrorism has nothing to do with the War in Iraq, but a war is a war nonetheless. We can't take back our involvement in the war and we certainly can't pull out the troops now. By doing so, we would be humiliting ourselves as a superpower by retreating in the face of adversity and all the progress made in Iraq thus far will be lost; not to mention that by retreating, the lives of the soldiers lost in Iraq will then truely be in vein.

Many of those responsible for the attack on the World Trade Center are paying / have paid. While Osama Bin Laden may still be free and indeed was the mastermind behind the planning of the attack, countless others behind him who played as much a role in the attack have paid with their lives or are in jail.

While we are losing soldiers in Iraq, I wouldn't neccessarily call it "needless." Everything has a cause and the War in Iraq is certainly doing its purpose of helping to provide a country with the freedom that we so cherish here in the United States.