Xtratime Community banner

1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,977 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
...not Dubya of course.

I've always been in favour of invading Iraq, though I never believed Bush's argument about the threat to America. He sent the army in for primarily bad reasons. I'm sure any benefit to the Iraqi people did not rank highly on his secret list of real reasons for invading and was incidental to the true purposes.

Yesterday I heard an interview that was pretty uplifting. The story was nominally about the 30% gain in value that the Iraqi currency has enjoyed over the last week. People are going back to work, all kinds of new products and services are flooding the country, and the population seems to be embracing opportunity with a mixture of bewilderment and increasing enthusiasm.

One banker talked about buying a satellite system that allowed him to see what was going on in the world after years of censorship. He relayed the (for him), novel experience of having foreigners come into his bank to conduct business, of Iraqis being free to leave the country to do the same.

Say what you want about American machinations, but the soldiers and taxpayers who footed the bill should feel some pride in having freed 17 million people and giving them an opportunity for a better life.
 

·
Nasty Woman
Joined
·
22,583 Posts
Look out Iraqi people! Warning!

HMO's are on their way.

:more furious typing and look of grim determination:
 

·
Community Analyst
Joined
·
32,844 Posts
Tinto said:
...not Dubya of course.

I've always been in favour of invading Iraq, though I never believed Bush's argument about the threat to America. He sent the army in for primarily bad reasons. I'm sure any benefit to the Iraqi people did not rank highly on his secret list of real reasons for invading and was incidental to the true purposes.

Yesterday I heard an interview that was pretty uplifting. The story was nominally about the 30% gain in value that the Iraqi currency has enjoyed over the last week. People are going back to work, all kinds of new products and services are flooding the country, and the population seems to be embracing opportunity with a mixture of bewilderment and increasing enthusiasm.

One banker talked about buying a satellite system that allowed him to see what was going on in the world after years of censorship. He relayed the (for him), novel experience of having foreigners come into his bank to conduct business, of Iraqis being free to leave the country to do the same.

Say what you want about American machinations, but the soldiers and taxpayers who footed the bill should feel some pride in having freed 17 million people and giving them an opportunity for a better life.
It is incredibly amusing to constantly hear the one-beat drum of yentas about CNN brainwashing we American are prone to, but then spout nothing but what their intelligentsia tells them to about the situation in Iraq. No doubt that there are ways to go. No doubt that there is valid criticism in instances during the transitional period between military operation and rebuilding. But the fact that they refuse to aknowledge that the situation as a whole is increasingly improving the everyday life of the Iraqi citizen is proof that in fact they are precisely what they accuse Americans of being. Brainwashed, indeed.

Nice post, thanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,502 Posts
Well I never believed in the reasons that were brought up why an invasion was nessecairy, however I became to understand that the result could be worth it.

The result being that the Iraqi's can lead a better life. Now this change of course requiers a long period of time. So basically I am not yet able to say if I think the whole operation was worth it. A few standards need to be met.
Forgive my sceptical attitude, but I want to see what happens to the budget for Iraq after the elections. Second I think a more unilateral approach is needed now to create a healthy relationship with Iraq in the future.

I have an exam tomorrow, so I'll elaborate later.

ADRIAAN
_______
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,837 Posts
I think i will congrats US, when they will leave Irak, with a rebuilt state and with a political system free from fundamentalism religious and extremism.....
That is too early for me
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,157 Posts
Yea, that's nice, but looking at the situation, it's mostly a side-effect.

As you say, the Iraqis' wellbeing was somewhere #345679 on Dubya's list, if at all. The US invaded for selfish reasons, for its own gain (I'm not preaching here, other countries do it all the time, but that's the way it is), and contrary to international law, with a constructed WMD story (they knew they were lying, anyone can see that) thrown in the face of its own public. But hey, I'm not gonna start this again.

Obviously the Iraqis are better off without Saddam. Like, duh. But they also have a country in total shambles. Could have it been different? Let's not concern ourselves with "could-have-beens"...it's like it is. The US is a "mild" occupier compared to many of history's conquerors, that is for sure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,168 Posts
What Adriaan said.

Seriously. I think it's still way too early to call. Saddam and his regime being gone is surely a very, very good thing for the people of Iraq, provided that what is to come will be better.
But that is and was not the only issue here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,977 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
These "too early to call" sentiments are just miserly in spirit.

Regardless of what happens in the future, or what happened in the past, (and I'm not minimizing the importance of either of those), the reality TODAY is that even with water and power shortages, and the resistance, Iraqis are better off than they were under Hussein. The U.S. could completely fuk it up starting an hour from now, and it wouldn't change the fact that at least for a few brief months, Iraqis have a had a taste of what freedom is like.

Don't bother telling me the U.S. is simply setting up a puppet state that will be amenable to U.S. interests. For the most part, you'd be preaching to the converted. The simple point I'm making is that Iraqis are better off Hussein-less, and the U.S. did it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,720 Posts
i dont agree that any congrats should go out. you cant just ignore the intentions of the bush administration. you dont congratulate someone because their selfish intentions brought out something that might be good. wouldnt that be positive reinforcement?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,403 Posts
Too early to call is besides the point - why congratulate just for the sake of balance of personal opinion? Since when was one's political opinion a label of one's self and something that you toy around with? Is this to gain an individual neutrality? Why do so whilst acknowledging that the result of invasion was hardly a priority..? Are we forgetting that a complete mockery was made of international law was made to carry out this invasion?

The only point we can now make is that Iraqis may now have a better future and that it was brought out by an invasion that had more than one intention. What's their to express pleasure or approval to the U.S for an achievement? Like Luigi said, that's just positive reinforcement.

It is wrong, in my opinion, to applaud the result of a massive military conquest, whoever the perpretator and whatever the result. This especially when mistakes were made, innocent people were killed, the result is still uncertain, the means violent, and the motives selfish.

Whatever the result, how can one congratulate the perpretators and acknowledge their crime at the same time? The only justification for congratulation would be that one is not only grateful but is content with the way things are going. We aren't content - we want change, so by reinforcing the notion that all's well that end's well we get nowhere.

This said, I also agree with Pila that it is wrong to deny that the situation has gotten better simply because of the existence of those selfish intentions.

It is also wrong to congratulate a military power given the mistakes it made and the motives it had.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,477 Posts
I said already in Glens forum that I reserve my judgement of this war after we counted all chickens. I would not say they are counted yet.

Some people have it better, some have it worse, some are dead, some would have been dead under Saddam. The actual war was less bloody than expected, but is not really over yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,977 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Like I said, I'm in complete agreement that the administration deserves no congratulations because they had pretty diabolical motives. But, the soldiers were successful by any reasonable military measure, and the American taxpayers did foot the bill, and the Iraqis are better off.

Except for the interview I cited, I haven't heard any non-American media give even peripheral acknowledgement to these facts. Pila is right, the educated European, (or Asian Bob ;) ) is always very quick to assume Americans too easily accept the view put forth by their mainstream media, (and I agree that's true), but he doesn't often seem to think of checking for a speck in his own eye.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,168 Posts
fangul said:
You like that heh?
:rolleyes:

Tinto: It is quite true that Iraqi's for a time have had a better and more benign rule than they had with Saddam. Obviously, and that's great for sure.

But what is it you want? This is like a discussion on multinational corporations sidestepping all regulations in developing countries, with the financial end results being modest improvement for the host country, and enormous profits for the company that disobeyed all rules and principles it would have been subjected to in it's home country. This has bad faith all over it.

It is not possible for me to applaud such practises. I can only be analytical in saying that I dearly hope Iraq will prosper from all this.

When the Bush administration went in, they gave specific reasons for doing so. Those have been proved not to hold up. That is in itself a very dramatic flaw, and especially as we're talking about war here. Both with regards to the justification of bombing the Iraqi soldiers and public, but also for the US public, Congress and Senate who have been mislead. Not to mention the UN, and as such the world community.

The impact of this is still unknown. Both in terms of what Iraq will actually be like, and in terms of the consequences for the entire region.

I'm certain that the soldiers of the US, Britain, Australia and all the way down to the small Danish group have destinguished themselves, and have conducted their tasks with as much civility and decency as could be possibly expected.

But it can and must never be forgotten that all norms and rules went out the window here, and if everybody starts accepting that this can be done, then it can be done elsewhere because the US has the power to do so, and in accepting it we'd be accepting that they can do so again when they (the Government) want.

That is not the world I want- irrespective of the fact that I certainly hope the US is succesfull in bringing about the postitive changes they claim they will.

You were in favor of this operation from the start because you agreed with this partial goal that has been realized. The dethroning of Saddam Hussein. As such it seems to me as you're making that THE mission. But it wasn't, and you know that also.
On other matters you appear to be very much a principled individual. On this one you support the right of might. I don't.

To quote retired US General Anthony Zinni : "Ohio State beat Slippery Rock 62 to 0. No shit!" http://www.mca-usniforum2003.org/forum03zinni.htm

The US army can do these things because it's the strongest military might on the planet. It can do it pretty much anywhere too. Topple the existing regime that is. But it cannot be allowed to.. or more correctly should not allow itself to.. without proper motivation, proper planning as to the aftermath of the war, and significantly cannot be allowed to without keeping up with international laws and regulations. Because that would be tyranny also.

This has nothing to do with how American men and women should feel about their military. When all is said and done it has done it's job, and admirably so I believe. That is the role of the military though, and in evaluating the goods and bads you need to look at the ones calling the shots. For all I know the German army was incredible pound4 pound during the world wars, but we're not exactly lavish with praise for their skill, endurance and guts. This is not to compare the regimes of course (and please keep your fingers off the trigger in terms of suggesting so :eek: ), but soldiers will be soldiers, and in the end they're pawns in the political game. The political game will always take first place when evaluating here. And the US administration flunked big time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,977 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
Glen, I'm going to assume you addressed all the points that you did, because it's more than you can bear to keep things simple.

Let me repeat for the third time, that I am not claiming any kind of moral victory here for the administration. I don't think I can be reasonably suspected of beating the American drum.

Iraqis were not free under Hussein, they are today. It's that simple. Your average American may even derive some pride from that. They should, as should the soldiers who produced this result. That's the level at which I feel congrats are in order.
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top