What do we win with Iraq?

mamaj said:

Lash, I think knowledge of torture and deprivation of rights were known, but, on the other hand, Irene Khan of Amnesty International makes a very good point. It also points out that a lot of this was going on back at the time of George the elder's war, but apparently was not considered a strong enough point until now.

Few of us doubt some of the torture accounts, but we are also aware of the same kind of reports from many parts of the world. And yet, the disclosure now, of these reports, makes the whole effort look more cynical, rather than a just reason.

I don't think her point is good at all. There are atrocities going on all over the world at this moment. The US is not responsible to hunt down every despot and dictator, any more than Canada, France or any other country is.

I didn't say the 'liberation' is a reason we may go to war with Saddam, but I agree with the UK gov and my gov when they say the freeing of the Iraqi people will be a glorious by-product of Saddam's removal.

I haven't personally interviewed each Iraqi citizen, but for God's sake, knowing what Saddam has done to his people, why would anyone think they wouldn't want freedom from a tyrant who rules by fear. Do you think the recent Iraqi "vote" was actually 100%?

PS--Not arguing.

0 Replies

mamajuana wrote:

Lash - I'm with you up to the last. I think it's arrogant to think that everybody in the world wants to be like us, or that we should try to make them so.

Lash, how presumptuous of you to think they want to be free! :wink:

0 Replies

trespassers will wrote:

Lash, how presumptuous of you to think they want to be free! :wink:

It's not a question of wanting to be free. It's a question about what they consider free and how they want it. As much as they hate Sadaam they might hate the idea of us interfering in their business even more.

0 Replies

Sen Lott doesn't seem to be all that busy, perhaps we can send him over to teach them what freedom is all about. (well armed of course just in case they might object) utilizing a team approach we can add Ashcroft to hold mandatory prayer meetings and Rumsfeld can sell their new government some bio-weapons.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

It's not a question of wanting to be free. It's a question about what they consider free and how they want it. As much as they hate Sadaam they might hate the idea of us interfering in their business even more.

Well, I am glad we did not split that hair before liberating the concentration and death camps during WWII.

I consider the desire to be free to be as universal as the desire to draw breath, and I think someone who is not free is no more concerned with who liberates him than he would be concerned as to who had saved him from drowning.

Now, others might be concerned as to who offered aid in both situations, depending upon what those others believed they gained or lost by leaving those in dire circumstances to their own devices.

0 Replies

tress,

What on earth are the similarities between liberating concentration camps created by a conqueror and toppling a dictatorial government?

What does breathing have to do with regime change?

Freedom is a nice buzz word. The freedom you speak of (poetic analogies with breath, drowning etc) has nothing to do with regime change.

What I'm saying is that the Iraqis might not consider themselves in need of liberation at all, not just that they'd take issue with the liberator.

0 Replies

Craven,

Those who have 'taken up the problem' have been given acid baths after watching their daughters' rapes and murders.

Their entire families have been wiped out.

Have you read about life under Saddam?

0 Replies

I will tell you this.

I am unsure of what will happen in Iraq after the regime change, if it takes place. I don't condone any US-styled puppet gov, or any US meddling.

The odds are that it will be better for the Iraqis. But I am not assured of this.

I am assured that the world will be a dangerous place while Saddam has the capability he has, or he will soon have. And I am convinced that the Iraqis have a better chance to live a better life without Saddam Hussien.

If you make the point that it may be worse, I have to agree. But I think the odds are tipping greatly to the probability that it may be better.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

What on earth are the similarities between liberating concentration camps created by a conqueror and toppling a dictatorial government?

Sorry, I thought it was obvious; in both cases the people are not free.

Quote:

What does breathing have to do with regime change?

It is called an analogy.

Quote:

Freedom is a nice buzz word. The freedom you speak of (poetic analogies with breath, drowning etc) has nothing to do with regime change.

It does if the people living under that regime are not free.

Quote:

What I'm saying is that the Iraqis might not consider themselves in need of liberation at all, not just that they'd take issue with the liberator.

If you found a woman being kept in a box in someone's basement, and she said she did not want to be set free, what would you do?

I do inderstand your point, I just think there is a point where it falls short. 99% of Iraqis just voted for Saddam. Do you think that means that 99% of them want to live as they do today with him as their leader? Or is it possible that people who live in an unfree society are often not able to openly clamor for freedom? And if they cannot tell us they want to be free because they would be killed or worse for doing so, should we still sit idly by and wait to be asked?

Clearly there are shades of grey involved here, but I find the notion that we should never interfere unless asked to do so untenable.

0 Replies

Have just come upon this discussion and haven't thoroughly read all the comments however is anyone naive enough to believe we care about the plight of the Iraqi people. Were it not for fear of Saddam gaining access to WMD's, at least that is what the Administration would like us to believe. Saddam could go on abusing those people indefinitely and we would not raise a whisper. As to what will happen if Saddam goes and a strong government does not take his place or we do not take firm control. I would point to Yugoslavia and what happened when Tito died.

0 Replies

Well, at least we can agree on one thing, Au.

The bushites son't give a DAMN about "Liberating the Iraqi people."

0 Replies

Lash Goth wrote:

Craven,

Those who have 'taken up the problem' have been given acid baths after watching their daughters' rapes and murders.

Their entire families have been wiped out.

Have you read about life under Saddam?

I am well aware of what Sadaam has wrought. You missed my point entirely.

Americans think that Saudi women need to be freed. Many Saudi women have expressed the desire to be free from the "need to be freed" label. What I'm attepmting to convey to you is that sometimes the people you think need to be liberated don't share the same opinion.

trespassers will wrote:

Sorry, I thought it was obvious; in both cases the people are not free. It is called an analogy.

You can make an analogy that in both cases we are talking about a predominantly biped species but it would be irrelevant. The situation in Iraq hardly equates to the Nazi concentration camps. It's a popular tactic to refer to this century's most infamous evils to try to substantiate one's case but that doesn't make the analogy valid.

The differentiating factors are hugely important. Iraq's problems with freedom are domestic.

trespassers will wrote:

It does if the people living under that regime are not free.

Once again, it does not matter what you and I think about their liberty, it matters what they think.

trespassers will wrote:

If you found a woman being kept in a box in someone's basement, and she said she did not want to be set free, what would you do?

I'd leave your fantasy land of simple analogies.

trespassers will wrote:

I do inderstand your point, I just think there is a point where it falls short. 99% of Iraqis just voted for Saddam. Do you think that means that 99% of them want to live as they do today with him as their leader? Or is it possible that people who live in an unfree society are often not able to openly clamor for freedom? And if they cannot tell us they want to be free because they would be killed or worse for doing so, should we still sit idly by and wait to be asked?

No you do not understand my point. I am well aware that the "100% vote" is tainted by the standing regime. My point is that should we occupy Iraq there is the possibility that the people will ask to be free from us. It's nice to paint ourselves as the liberators but I doubt that the average Iraqi will see us in such a rosy light.

trespassers will wrote:

Clearly there are shades of grey involved here, but I find the notion that we should never interfere unless asked to do so untenable.

That's an assumption, I never stated that.

I am simply stating that the situation is not as simple as walking in freeing the people and walking out as heros. Many of they will consider us the impediment to their freedom and the resentment of foreign troops will play a big role.

There is a chance that their free choice would be to elect a despot. This happens all the time. Thinking that this is a simple and clear cut case of a heroic liberation of a people is naive (and I'm aware that you do not hold this view).

Americans consider many peoples to be living in situations of less than optimal freedom. Securing these percieved freedoms through military invasion is a very tricky undertaking and does not make sense when reduced to the most simplistic of analogies.

0 Replies

Craven - The example was intended to be extreme to show that your position might not make sense if viewed another way. If you choose not to consider that, what can I do about it. And as I recall Germany's "final solution" was also a "domestic" problem. That means what? That we should not have helped the Jews because they were German Jews?

Whether you choose to accept it, I do and did understand your point, I simply think it is flawed. I think there are situations where people do not want our help where that might not be reason enough to withhold it. I think you'd see this too if you weren't simply focused on trying to prove me wrong.

Quote:

My point is that should we occupy Iraq there is the possibility that the people will ask to be free from us.

And I would argue that if that occurs we would likely give them that freedom.

Quote:

Americans consider many peoples to be living in situations of less than optimal freedom. Securing these percieved freedoms through military invasion is a very tricky undertaking...

...and not one I would necessarily advocate on that basis alone. If we were only speaking of going in to enforce freedom you might have a point, but we both know there's a lot more to this than that.

0 Replies

trespassers will wrote:

Quote:
Americans consider many peoples to be living in situations of less than optimal freedom. Securing these percieved freedoms through military invasion is a very tricky undertaking...

...and not one I would necessarily advocate on that basis alone. If we were only speaking of going in to enforce freedom you might have a point, but we both know there's a lot more to this than that.

I just noticed that you think I'm arguing against the war. I'm not. I support the war under certain conditions. I'm arguing against the dreamy notion that we can easily free a people. I think it's a dangerous mentality (once again I'm not talking about yours). I'm not trying to prove you wrong either. There is no such thing as right and wrong in an argument like this. Just differing opinions.

I made the part I consider important bold. We aren't going there to liberate the people. It's the WMDs that give us a shot at the endeavor. Liberating the people would be a much trickier sell. As it stands it's thrown in as a bonus for the WMD sell.

I don't like moral absolutes in geopolitics. Sometimes you don't free the enthralled and for good reason. My criteria for this war is to do what we can get away with without settinf precedents and without a significant backlash. Dreams of "just add water democracy" for the Arab world is a notion I'm not comfortable with. I've seen America push very sound policies only to have the message rejected because of a despised messenger.

I think Iraq is a tricky situation and I don't like moral absolutes because they impair the ability for us to nuance.

0 Replies

I think it's very dangerous for anyone to make a presumption about the rest of the world and its preferences. It's interesting that we don't really have up-to-date information on life in Iraq. What we seem to be operating on mostly are second-hand accounts from the Iraqi National Congress, and it turns out they really don't have the info. They meet, and can't even get together. The hawks don't trust any CIA info, which could be a serious mistake.

But the issue really is - what right do we have to go in and tell another country and its people how to live? We have done that with such disastrous results. And we certainly don't want anyone else telling us - living as we do in our own perfect world.

Saddam Hussein, for instance does not have a theocracy. The women there dress in jeans, if they choose, wear make-up, hold jobs, are doctors. Why shouldn't I believe those reports? Why should I only believe the propaganda put out by us? Is it so much different? Do we really know - as we are told - that life there is so bad that everyone will greet us with roses?

How come we went to such pains with Allende, with Salvador, with Nicaragua? Were we saving the world for democracy, or did we have other goals? And what about Saudi Arabia - our friends. Women there are so restricted they can't drive cars, and have to be covered all the time. And their children belong to the husband's family. This is freedom? But we continue to have business with them, call them friend.

It upsets me that we preach out of both sides of our mouths, and expect to be taken honestly. There are many reasons why we are doing this to Iraq, but which of them is a good one? To get him before he gets us? In the schoolyard, everybody knows the bully has that reason. For a group of people at the top of the administration who profess a Christian relationship with the world, there seems to be a lot missing.

And the referrences to Germany, what happened there, and to whom, are simply red flags - everything is said and done to inflame the American public. Which, apparently, is something that hasn't happened yet, to the credit of the people.

0 Replies

CLICK HERE FOR INTERVIEWS WITH IRAQIS

The first one is with a Kurdish widow. Saddam made her a widow.
If you look to the left, there are names of other interviewees. One, I know, is anti-American. I think it's a fair smattering.

Interested to hear what you glean from the socio-economic classes of the people compared to their views.

0 Replies

How refreshing, Lash. A balanced series of interviews. I recommend the link to everyone.

0 Replies

Lash - this would have more impact if the source were different. We all know Tony Blair is pushing for the same thing, so a few interviews from a British publication do not - to me - make the authoritative source. They are the same kind of propaganda story I see elsewhere - the women in their head scarves. with children, from the villages. This is not to say they and the situation do not exist.

But I have also read and seen interviews from Iraqi people that were quite different from that. Women in malls, in their schools, talking about other things.

So I would not consider this any more a balanced report than you would most likely consider reports that only covered the teens in their jeans laughing. At least two sides to every story.

Except for the moustaches. That they all seem agreed upon.

0 Replies

mamaj--

That's telling. You relegate the entire BBC irrelevent because of Tony Blair? You really give the man too much power.

Does that mean no US paper has any credibility with you because of Bush?

As I stated, there were six interviews conducted and available to access on that link. Some espoused anti-American sentiment. I think it is a fair cross-section of Iraqis, if you want to hear what they have to say.

But, entirely your perogative.

No further nudging from me.

0 Replies

Lash,

I haven't read the link and certainly don't discount British press. But also don't think the sampling is enough for any conclusive data to be drawn.

0 Replies

What do we win with Iraq?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know