THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

ebrown_p wrote:

Aren't these the people we are supposed to be liberating?

"Surrender or Die so we can give you freedom". Now I get it.

About as much as we were liberating Saddam and his army.

0 Replies

Foxfyre,

Whatever happened to "Love you enemies". You would be a bleeding heart liberal" too if you lived up to the religion you profess. A little compassion wouldn't hurt.

Rhetoric aside, the US action you are trumpeting is resulting in the deaths of men, women and children who would doubtless be much better off if we weren't leveling their homes.

If you were willing to question your political loyalties enough to have a little compassion, you would realize the political goal of January elections are not at all worth the cost.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

If they are wise. Otherwise, they do have the alternative of turning in Zarqawi, but they have tellingly declined that opportunity.

Of the 250,000 former population of Fallujah, about 50,000 to 60,000 remain. I am sure it is very logical to you that they all know the whereabouts of Zarqawi and are just being obstinate about turning him in.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
If they are wise. Otherwise, they do have the alternative of turning in Zarqawi, but they have tellingly declined that opportunity.

Of the 250,000 former population of Fallujah, about 50,000 to 60,000 remain. I am sure it is very logical to you that they all know the whereabouts of Zarqawi and are just being obstinate about turning him in.

Fallujajh is the hotbed of the insurgency. It should have been leveled long ago.

Tico wrote:

Warnings have been given, the civilians should get the hell out, leaving the enemy. If the civilians don't get out, maybe they aren't "civilians" after all.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Fallujajh is the hotbed of the insurgency. It should have been leveled long ago.

Tico wrote:

Warnings have been given, the civilians should get the hell out, leaving the enemy. If the civilians don't get out, maybe they aren't "civilians" after all.

And once we have leveled Fallujah, al Ramadi, al Qaim, and Latifya, and new hotbeds take their place, your solution is...?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

IF the bleeding heart liberals in the U.S. are unable to make it too politically incorrect, IF congress and the people stand behind the President with a mandate to end this honorably, expediently, and successfully, then yes, I think we will see a free and prosperous Iraq and I think we'll see that accomplished with far fewer innocent lives than are paid to win the huge majority of free and prosperous democracies.

You guys have a way to blame everything on us bleeding heart liberals. I hardly think people discussing facts about the Iraq war is keeping the US might of the military from being successful. It was totally inept planning for the aftermath of the fall of Saddam Hussien that is causing this failure. But go ahead and blame it on us if it makes you feel any better. You get your cue from the master. I really don't care, sticks and stones and all that.

0 Replies

Ebrown, the hypocrisy of your position sickens me. You pretend to give a rat's ass about the Iraqi people, yet if it were up to you their plight would be their own. They'd live under horrible oppression, with State sponsored rape and murder, generation after generation, forever. Sanctions don't hurt people like Saddam and Kim; they provide legitimate reasons to blame us for their people's suffering. You bitch about imperialism and then suggest the upcoming elections are a political sideshow? It is people with your mindset that would have turned a blind eye to slavery forever. The death toll would have been to great of burden on their conscience.

I would bet the decent people of Fallujajh like having the insurgent's in control about as much as the people in the Ghetto like having gangs in control. Your assumptions to the contrary are out of character for someone with your ethnic sensitivity. Think it through.

0 Replies

Bill,

You don't understand because you, like many in this thread, can not step out of an American viewpoint.

Quote:

I would bet the decent people of Fallujajh like having the insurgent's in control about as much as the people in the Ghetto like having gangs in control.

This statement is the key to our entire disagreement.

If the majority of the people of Fallujah want the Americans to come in to save them from the insurgents, then you are right. Not only would you be morally right, but the situation will work itself out with little cost as the citizens hand over the "insurgents" and support the American troops.

However if I am right, and the majority of people are opposed to the American troops and supporting the insurgents, than your position is simply morally and logically wrong. Not only would this mean that what the US is doing has no justification (you can't force people to be "liberated"), but the US will fail as the population supports and even joins the insurgency and all chaos erupts.

Remember the stakes here. People are dying, much more than they were dying under Saddam. Their wives are dying and their children are dyning.

Many of them are dying for a cause they don't support by a Country they hate. All this is happening in their own country and in their own homes.

Rather than accuse each other of hypocrisy, we both need to look long and hard at the difficulties in our position. I assure you that I have done that. I have never supported the Saddam regime and I understand that the fact that Saddam is gone means that he won't continue a brutal regime of repression.

But you also need to look at the steep costs of the war. You need to accept that fact that a significant proportion of Iraqi's, maybe even a majority, are opposed to the US occupation and will do anything, including joining the insurgency to stop it because they feel the US is hurting their country.

Your phrase "the decent people of Fallujah" is a telling one. I fear that you are assuming the people of Fallujah think like you do. What if the decent people are the insurgents trying to defend their country? What crime have they commited that means they can be "leveled" without defending themselves? Who are you to make a judgement about what is best for them?

So Bill, I accept the same challenge that I give to you.

We both need to see both sides of the issue. We need to look at the voices from within Iraq, both those who suffered under Saddam and those who are opposing the US now.

But the near future will be very telling. If Iraqi citizens band together to support the Allawi government and have a successful US style election, I will gladly admit I was wrong.

But if Iraqi citizens band together to oppose the US occupation leading to a failed election and an increasing insurgency, I will know that my fears and my horror at US policy is right.

I hope that this doesn't happen, but the facts on the ground say it is already happening.

If this is the case, the US actions are immoral by both your values and mine.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Warnings have been given, the civilians should get the hell out, leaving the enemy. If the civilians don't get out, maybe they aren't "civilians" after all.

This is not convincing. There are any number of reasons why a civilian family might decide to stay at home, even under circumstances like Fallujah today.

0 Replies

Ebrown, let me start by apologizing for the excess accusatory emotion in my last post. By contrast, the courtesy in yours makes me feel a little ashamed.

I do believe that the people of Iraq are no different than you or I. Decades of conditioning may make the idea of self determination foreign to them, but once they experience it; I expect they'll embrace it... and yes, even be willing to fight for it. When Saddam was first overthrown, some younger Iraqi's were celebrating the fact by yelling out pro-Saddam chants. It was the only way they had ever known to celebrate publicly. It may take some time for them to adapt to freedom, but once they do, you can pity the fool who tries to take it away again. The degree of difficulty of the task should not be the defining measure of it's rightness. All people deserve at least a minimum amount of freedom from horror.

I don't believe a majority of Iraqi's want anything less than free elections for themselves. Perhaps I'm too naive, but so would they have to be for that to be true. Frankly, even if the majority were against freedom; that wouldn't make us wrong. Sometimes you have to fight for the minority too. As I understand it: In the mind of Islamic extremists, women should play the roles of slaves in society. I do not care how long that's been part of the culture anymore than I care how long keeping negro slaves was. Right is right and wrong is wrong. Whatever percentage of the population is willing to fight to the death to protect their right to own slaves is the percentage of the population that needs to be systematically exterminated until the rest accept that slavery is no longer tolerated in the civilized world. This isn't a subject that calls for compromise.

I may seem to take too extreme of position to you, but I can't help it. I see little difference between the struggles of Alice Paul and Dr. King, either. Some things are worth dying for, so it follows, that some things are worth killing for. The next generation of Iraqis will consist of some 7,000,000 million children no different than yours or mine. Do they deserve to grow up with some form of liberty, dignity and security? I say they do. Like you; I'll mourn the inevitable martyrs, that hopefully will take them from this world to that. But I'll also honor those that help them accomplish this most noble of goals with all my soul. Sooner or later, this is work that NEEDS to be done. Delaying the inevitable; simply condemns another generation to a fate that I'm lucky enough to have to imagine to understand.

If George Bush accomplishes this, I'll forgive him all of his mistakes. And I'm guessing; so would you.

0 Replies

If this war is so just and moral and all that crap, and you agree with it - why the hell are you sitting at a computer? why dont you enlist and do your part for this "great" nation? Instead of sitting here spouting your double standard conservative bull-sh*te!!!

0 Replies

Tell me gav: Do you now work full time at a woman's shelter?... Or do you support the rapists and abusive bastards that send them there?

0 Replies

The bombing has begun.

U.S. warplanes pound targets in Fallujah

0 Replies

Sorry you didnt pick up my thread right. That wasn't aimed specifically at you...just republicans in general.

0 Replies

Obill has a point. Many people who support the police catching bad guys without being a cop, who think fires should be put out without being a fireman, who think the city should fix potholes and build schools without running for office or working a city hall, think you can't support want freedom and justice for a people unless you enlist and go fight the war.

0 Replies

gav wrote:

Sorry you didnt pick up my thread right. That wasn't aimed specifically at you...just republicans in general.

Until you somehow find time to volunteer for each and every cause you have an opinion on, that type of question will continue to be indicative of hypocrisy leaning towards idiocy. I wouldn't recommend asking it often. :wink:

0 Replies

Bill,

Again, the question here is what the Iraqis want

Quote:

I do believe that the people of Iraq are no different than you or I. Decades of conditioning may make the idea of self determination foreign to them, but once they experience it; I expect they'll embrace it... and yes, even be willing to fight for it.

It seems to me that if my country were occupied by a foreign power that I didn't trust, I wouldn't accept the "self-determination" they were offering. This is a flaw in your argument. You can't force "self-determination" on people.

The fact that Iraqis are fighting against our plans is a big problem.

Remember that Iraqis are Arabs. Those people who are very upset with us over Israel and march against America in Egypt and Jordan and Lebanon are very connected with the people in Iraq.

You are the same as they are because you care about your kids and love you country, but unless you would go out in the street to angrily protest against the US policy in Israel your perspective is quite a bit different than theirs.

Quote:

But I'll also honor those that help them accomplish this most noble of goals with all my soul. Sooner or later, this is work that NEEDS to be done. Delaying the inevitable; simply condemns another generation to a fate that I'm lucky enough to have to imagine to understand.

We agree that this work needs to be done. But this work needs to be done by Iraqis. A significant proportion of the population sees the US as an enemy of their way of life and their religion. Because of the, the US or a US backed government seems doomed to failure.

Besides, I agree that Iraqis want a peaceful and stable society and that they want self-determination. But what does this mean to Iraq?

If another country came with a big army to tell us what we needed to do to rebuild our country (after they invaded), I don't think I would be too supportive of their plans. If they leveled my city at the cost of thousands of lives I would be even less inclined-- even if they were offering "self-determination".

The inevitable is that Iraq will eventually return to stability, probably after continued period of violent conflict. It doesn't seem that the US is able to help this return.

Quote:

If George Bush accomplishes this, I'll forgive him all of his mistakes. And I'm guessing; so would you.

Of course.

But the question is-- when do you look at the facts on the ground and realize that it is the Iraqis who are fighting against us. If the insurgency grows, it will reach a point where it will be clear to everyone that we have lost Iraq.

So my question is-- at what point should we accept that our actions in Iraq aren't getting us any closer to a peaceful stable Iraq and are in fact making things much worse.

If I am right, then we are just taking away lives without gaining anything for ourselves or for the Iraqi's.

------

I feel strongly about this because I am already convinced that we have passed this point. The Iraqis have spoken, through the insurgency, that they do not want us in their country.

Like you or I would, they are doing what they feel is best for their country.

You may not agree with them about what is best for their country, but who should have the right to decide this?

There are things that could happen that would change my mind.

If there is a large popular movement in Iraq in favor of the US occupation from people who are not being armed and paid by the US government, I would be very happy to support the US actions.

But right now it is the anti-US insurgents who are getting a lot of support from the Iraqi public. The citizens in Fallujah are not turning over the insurgents and it is almost certain that many of them are the insurgents. There is daily violence against US forces and their allies. If the people of Iraq supported the occupation, the insurgents would not be able to operate with so much success.

So Bill,

I have told you what it would take to convince me I am wrong, I have told you why I think I am right, and I have told you the cost of continuing this failed policy any further.

What would it take to convince you? If there is chaos that prevents a free and fair election in January will you see that this is a disaster?

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

So Bill,

I have told you what it would take to convince me I am wrong, I have told you why I think I am right, and I have told you the cost of continuing this failed policy any further.

What would it take to convince you? If there is chaos that prevents a free and fair election in January will you see that this is a disaster?

I think you are declaring it a failed policy unrealistically soon. Some things worthwhile take more time.

What would it take to convince me I was wrong? That would depend on the level of resistance. Come January, they take the first step towards deciding for themselves what they want. You say they have spoken through their insurgence, but I couldn't agree with that statement any less. I'm more interested in what the people not holding Kalashnikovs want. The resistance against us would have to become a hell of a lot more significant before I'd be happy to see us abandon those who do want and need our help.

ebrown_p wrote:

If the people of Iraq supported the occupation, the insurgents would not be able to operate with so much success.

This is simply not true. In Los Angeles; a tiny fraction of the population actually want the gangs in the street, yet they operate with reckless abandon... and seemingly nothing can be done about them. Does this mean we should pull back the policing of these neighborhoods? The Crips and Bloods believe they are protecting their turf too. Many of them will fight you to the death... and when one dies at the hands of the L.A.P.D., it sometimes encourages others to take up the fight for their righteous cause! Thing is, that they believe their cause is just, doesn't make it so. And the people who live in South Central are every bit as deserving of police protection as you or I.

It would take a great deal to convince me I was wrong. Each generation brings 7 million Iraqis who should have the same human rights as you or I. The overall number of people on this planet that need help is staggering... but we have to start somewhere. No one ever said it would be quick or easy. The only thing I'm sure of is that many will suffer to accomplish this goal so it will take an iron will and a great deal of resolve to succeed. I hope with all of heart that we continue to fight the good fight, until we win or forever... whichever comes first. I'm almost sure it's just wishful thinking; but I hope peace in Iraq is the beginning of the fight... not the end.

We'll just have to meet in the middle at hoping for the best.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:
If the people of Iraq supported the occupation, the insurgents would not be able to operate with so much success.
This is simply not true. In Los Angeles; a tiny fraction of the population actually want the gangs in the street, yet they operate with reckless abandon... and seemingly nothing can be done about them. Does this mean we should pull back the policing of these neighborhoods? The Crips and Bloods believe they are protecting their turf too. Many of them will fight you to the death... and when one dies at the hands of the L.A.P.D., it sometimes encourages others to take up the fight for their righteous cause! Thing is, that they believe their cause is just, doesn't make it so. And the people who live in South Central are every bit as deserving of police protection as you or I.I

Step outside and take a deep breath of that fresh salt air Bill. If we cracked down on the Crips and the Bloods with air strikes and artillery, what do you think would be the reaction??

Can you come up with a maximum length of time that if no improvement occurs we should call it quits? At what point in time should the American people start sacrificing to support this war as with other conflicts of the past?

0 Replies

parameters and definitions have been totally lacking in Bush's war on Iraq equal only to the lack of objective and therein lies the comparrison with vietnam.

0 Replies

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know