America, Ensign of Freedom

Well .... I'm a Buddhist and so that God business doesn't light my fire. On the other hand I support the sentiment. Patience. We're doing alright, and in the end things will be o.k. Terrorists and the forces of oppression have many short-term advantages over representative government, but in the end I'm confident that we will prevail.

It's always a bit risky, I think, to claim God's blessings for many of our endeavors. (This is true by whatever name we attach to a diety or the Divine.) The best we can hope for is to do our best for our actions to conform to the highest good (God's will) and pray for our efforts to be blessed.

it_stapley, such dangerous thinking. I say this not because I favor oppression. I say it because as you phrase your noble ideal--the liberation of all people from oppression--by uniting as Americans you call for some things that are not ideal. By calling for American unity you imply that dissent against Bush's policies are counter-productive and perhaps pro-oppression. I think most Iraquis would disagree; indeed, they see us as oppressors. And you fail to call for our uniting with all countries to eliminate oppression. We must overcome this preemptive-unilateralism, with its implication of US as independent from, and even against, the world.Being the only World Power standing has made some of us dangerously megalomaniacal. We should all recognize by now that, at least on pragmatic grounds, it is implausible. We can't afford it.
I do like the liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein, but I don't think we did it in a rational manner. It could have been accomplished eventually without the loss of nearly a thousand young American lives and the lives of thousands of Iraqis.

Agreed, JLN.

I do not believe "God" is on the side of any particular country.

I would like to believe the supreme force of the universe is leading us all to a place where we can learn to get along better with one another, regardless of country, religion, race, gender, etc.

Progress in this realm seems excruciatingly slow, though. 2 steps forward, 1 step back.

As completely as JL and I agree on religious matters, its clear we don't see eye-to-eye politically. Though die-hard supporters of Saddam and those who are fanatical radical Muslims certainly hate the U.S. and the efforts to reform Iraq into a civil society, I believe most Iraqis probably prefer the present circumstances to life under Saddam and the Ba'athists. The country is still a shambles, and those who prefer despotism to freedom are still actively murdering and sabotaging all efforts to improve life for the people. That gets a lot of press, but does it really tell us what the average person feels?

I believe that most people desire self-determination and freedom. I believe that most people want to improve life for themselves and their children. I believe that most people want to live in a country where they aren't afraid of being murdered in their beds, or taken away in the dark of night to a secret prison where they are tortured and killed. I believe most people want justice and dignity. The people of Iraq have been deprived of those things for a long time, and it will take time for them to trust again, to believe in fair play and the possibility of balanced justice. We, the Coalition forces, are making that possible. That's a good thing, and we should not be deterred by the violence of those who prefer tyranny.

Asherman, I don't see that, at least on this point, we differ that much. On other issues we probably do, since I am way to the left of most of my friends. The reason I vote Democrat is because they are the lesser evil. Bush's COMPASSIONATE conservativism is a joke, as I hope you agree. And the "coalition" label given to our alliance with England and a few others (and against the will of most of England's people) is another hilarity. The Republicans are evil in their present actions designed to put the American economy into a position where it cannot afford to maintain any safety nets or social services for poor people. Democrats fail in their refusal, hopefully til now, to reject and resist the cruelties of America's conservativism. I can't imagine that you would defend such actions. I hope you are a conservative in the sense of Eisenhower, or even, Nixon (compared to Reagan and the Bushes).

Bush is turning our dream into a nightmare.

America shouldn't need God to be free and neither should Iraq. And for that matter, Iraq shouldn't need America. And I don't trust any politician anywhere to have a plan that involves anyone's freedom but his own.

JL,

No, we are on opposite ends of the political spectrum. I call myself a Federalist, I believe in the policies of Washington and Adams among others. I believe that a strong central Federal government is necessary, and that a strong credible military is the best guarantor of peace. Representative government is far preferable to direct democracy. The political philosophy of Jefferson has, in my opinion, been caused the nation untold problems. The world we live in today requires the same principles so highly prized by the founding fathers.

The Republican Party is not truly Federalist, but it comes closer to the fundamentals underlying the Constitution, in my view, than the alternatives.

My family, since about the time of Andrew Jackson, were Democrats. They were mostly Southerners who had romantic notions about chivalry and State's Rights. We lost the Late Unpleasantness, and endured the Yankee occupation. The family saw the need for the New Deal as an antidote to the Great Depression, and the social ills that had existed far too long. I protested Jim Crow and the Vietnam War in the late 50s and early 60s, inspired by the activism of JFK. We absolutely hated LBJ for his crassness and willingness to remain in Vietnam. Nixon and Goldwater were the boogymen to us in those days. In President Carter we had the decent, honorable man that we thought the country needed, deserved.

We were wrong far to often, misled by our idealism. LBJ did what needed to be done, even though the entire country misunderstood and hated him for it. The hated Nixon's initiatives to prc was a long overdue means of dividing our Communist enemies. Carter was a saint, and seldom has the nation been less ably led. We scoffed at Reagan, but his economic policies made us stronger, and his foreign policies brought the Soviet Union finally to its knees. With the end of the Cold War, the risk of Mutually Assured destruction dropped almost off the scale. Captive nations and populations were free to pursue their own destiny for the first time in almost half a century. Everyone, or at least almost everyone, heaved a sigh of relief and began dreaming again of perpetual peace. What actually happened was that the clients of the old Communist block was set free to pursue their own ends with bombs, assassinations and terror directed against the West.

Slowly over the years I found it more and more difficult to support the Democratic leadership, and the Democratic Party platform. Finally, I changed Party affiliation and generations of my ancestors rolled in their graves. I am satisfied that both Bush administrations have advanced the interests and security of the United States, and in a larger sense advanced the cause of freedom for the rest of the world.

Asherman, if we had such a government, would you deny those living in it the option of reclaiming their freedom and governing themselves, without being a part of or being represented by, the government?

That's certainly true. However, it still doesn't mean that it's the FIRST choice of most Iraqis, and they should be able to make a choice for themselves without USA or Coalition or anyone else.



True. But, I also believe that most of Iraqis feel that they don't have freedom and self-determination rights while foreign troops are in their country.

Asherman's political history closely parallels my own though I had too many friends and relatives fighting in Vietnam to be much of an anti-war protester. My frustration then was that we pulled our punches too much and thereby lost many more of our brave soliders than would otherwise have happened. It broke my heart to see those soldiers spat upon when they returned home, and to this day I have a warm spot in my heart for the Vietnam vet.

I also had friends with conscientious objector status who served out their military responsibility working in hospitals and similar facilities stateside. I have a lot of respect for them as well.

There is always room in a government like ours for people of honor and integrity to disagree. I believe the world will be a better place for what we have done/are doing in Iraq. I believe if the Iraqi people could vote for things to go back to the way they were before the invasion, the vast majority would vote no. I accept that many disagree with me on that.

I am glad we live in a country in which we are free to disagree. I hope we will find ways to do that without the need to demonize each other.

No, I actually believe most would agree with you. I do. But, I also believe that vast majority would vote "yes" for American and all other troops to get out of their country today. Not tommorow - today. And, whatever you think about it, Iraq is independent country and it should be their call.

Rufio,

I'm sorry I don't understand your question. You'll have to be a bit more clear before I can make a response.

Foxfire,

Alright, it took me a while to smarten up and look beyond the sort of idealism that puts "Ought" above dealing with actual events and historical forces. I hope I'm wiser now, and more willing to look at the "Big Picture" than I was when a callow youth.

MyOwn....,

I sure that if it were possible for Coalition forces to leave country tomorrow, they would be packing as we speak. The fact is the new Iraqi government is still too weak to handle the elements who've dedicated themselves to returning Iraq to a dictatorship. Radical Islamic terrorists will continue to carry out terrorist operations against Iraqi targets and population for sometime yet. The Coalition has already turned over the government to an interim Iraqi governing council, and in a short while the Iraqi people will have an opportunity to vote their preference ... if the thugs and terrorists can be prevented from intimidation. Coalition forces will be necessary to support the cautious steps the Iraqis are making toward building a new and more civil society.

Is it necessary that all U.S. forces be withdrawn for Iraq to be "free and independent"? No, I don't think so. Was West Germany a puppet of Washington during the Cold War? Did the Occupation forces of the United States have a negative effect on Japan? Have U.S. military bases harmed any of the host countries? Its my understanding that the Philippines would dearly like to turn back the clock and again host the main far Pacific base for the U.S. Navy. The fact of the matter is that most countries depend upon the United States for most of their security, and the closer American forces are, the less likely they will be attacked by someone like Saddam.

I understand your point. And I don't think that it's necessary that all US forces withdraw from Iraq, for Iraq to be completely free and independent.
But, if Iraqis want them to withdraw then they should.
And, actually, yes, I think that West Germany for some time was puppet of Washington.
As for military bases most of those countries agreed to have them, and that's fine. Philippines would maybe like to turn back the clock, actually I am pretty sure that they would, but I think the main point is IF they wouldn't like to do that, USA has no choice but to accept will of independent country (unless this country poses direct threat to USA, and I am not sure that it was the case in Iraq).

Hmn, yes West Germany had little political automy in the years after WWII. It took quite a few years to de-Nazify the government, repair the damage of war, and put the people back on their feet. After that, Germany pretty much went its own way, though it has until recently been a strong supporter of the United States. I suppose when the risk of being overrun by Soviet divisions pouring through the Fulda Gap went away, Germany decided to find other friends ... like Saddam.

When the Iraqi government asks us to leave, I suppose we will leave. If Saudi Arabia wants us gone, then we can use those forces in other places. Who wants us to withdraw our shield from them? Why is it that you assume that any goernment hosting our military forces wants them to leave, and why is it that you seem to believe that we would not respect the wishes of our hosts?

Hm, I don't really see difference in Germany being "friends" with Saddam, and USA being "friends" with Saudis. They are same, just that because Saudis are "friends" average American probably have no clue about level of Saudi dictatorship.

Oh, I am not assuming that any government hosting your military forces wants you to leave (especially not governments).

I am however assuming that USA would not respect the wishes of hosts. I mean, if this hosts have oil.

Did Saudi Arabia use poison gas on its own citizens, or deploy it in battle? Did Saudi Arabia invade a neighbor, and conduct bitter trench warfare resulting in the deaths of at least hundreds of thousands? Did Saudi Arabia invade a small neighboring country to steal its oil and avoid paying it's debts? Did Saudi Arabia made determined efforts to acquire terror weapons, including nuclear devices? Did Saudi Arabia murder entire villages because they belonged to a different religious sect? Did Saudi Arabia agree to a set of conditions as a means of stopping a war they were losing, and then welsh on every promise? Did King Saud make payments to the families of those willing to commit suicide bombings, or give support to terrorists operating in other countries?

Saudi Arabia is indeed a dictatorship, but to compare the Sauds with Saddam is just a bit of a stretch.

Why do you believe that the U.S. would not leave a nation, if asked by that government?