To Free Iraq from Dictatorial Oppression

[_JS]

How much worse does the situation have to become before we acknowledge that the end result of Iraq as a bastion of freedom in the Middle East is entirely an illusion so long as we continue down our present course of action?

Do you think that has ever been a real goal?

I'm asking sincerely.

We didn't leave Saddam to be polished off by the Kurds and Shi'ite Muslims after the Gulf War. Quite the opposite. We've always been fearful of a Shi'ite government in Iraq that might have some allegiances to Iran, as well as being a threat to Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. We've also been worried about a free Kurdish state and the regional impact that might have on Turkey, Iran, and Syria.

A strong Iraq, or strong enough to avoid being overrun by Iranian agents and terrorist camps, required Saddam. Otherwise we'd have used air support and could have easily aided the Kurds and Shi'ites in their rebellion.

So I ask, is a free democratic Iraq really the goal, or is it something to tell the people at home?

[Universe Prince]

How much worse does the situation have to become before we acknowledge that the end result of Iraq as a bastion of freedom in the Middle East is entirely an illusion so long as we continue down our present course of action?

Do you think that has ever been a real goal?

I'm asking sincerely.

I don't know anymore. To be honest, the notion that we were going to free an oppressed people is one of the few ideas that kept me from finding the whole war completely abhorrent. But maybe I was fooling myself to think that was ever a goal. I tend to believe that even when people do something horribly wrong, they do so believing that they are, for whatever reason, doing the right thing. So it seems to me the whole freeing the Iraqis from tyranny has to have been at least a rationalization for sending troops to Iraq. And maybe that is all it was, but the idea of it as a goal was there, I think. A main goal? No. And since the action began, we continue to have the "would you rather Saddam still be in power" hanging over all our heads so that people don't complain too much. Perhaps it really was all propaganda, something to tell the people at home. Perhaps it was an illusion from the beginning. I know that right now it is an illusion, and we have illustration number seven hundred million, nine hundred and thirty-two thousand and something as to why the U.S. government should stop trying to create an American hegemony.

[Plane]

  Was freeing the opressed the main reason for sending thousands of Americans to Europe in 1943?

[Plane]

As the Iriqui Government grows in strength not only will they need us less , they will be more apt to contradict our instruction , but what would you rather they did?



What would I rather they did? How about, just as a start, protecting freedom of speech rather than legislating censorship? Iraqi reporters and journalists are being beaten and killed, and rather than do something to protect these people, the Iraqi government passed laws banning criticism of the government. Now, in addition to living with the threat of being beaten or killed, the Iraqi reporters and journalists have to live with the threat of being put in jail if they say something offensive to the government. How much worse does the situation have to become before we acknowledge that the end result of Iraq as a bastion of freedom in the Middle East is entirely an illusion so long as we continue down our present course of action? 
 
« Last Edit: October 03, 2006, 06:49:52 AM by Universe Prince » 
 

They are odviously not doing this the American way .

But if we interpose ourselves do we humiliate them ?

Are we just going to be a better despot than Saddam?


If all they have is genuine  elections they can use the election process to fight any problem, includeing an overbearing government.

[Universe Prince]

  Was freeing the opressed the main reason for sending thousands of Americans to Europe in 1943?

What is the relevance of this question?

[Universe Prince]

They are odviously not doing this the American way .

And what way would that be?

But if we interpose ourselves do we humiliate them ?

We didn't care about that before the war, so why would it be a consideration now? Anyway, for the record, I have not suggested we force the Iraqi government to do anything.

Are we just going to be a better despot than Saddam?

Us? What about the Iraqi government?

If all they have is genuine  elections they can use the election process to fight any problem, includeing an overbearing government.

Can they? If their election process works anything like ours, I have serious doubts that they can.

[The_Professor]

This reminds me of similar actions taken by the "democratic" government of South Vietrnam before it collapsed.They also "cracked down" on dissidents and we saw basic freedoms melt away.

[Plane]

  Was freeing the opressed the main reason for sending thousands of Americans to Europe in 1943?

What is the relevance of this question?

So it seems to me the whole freeing the Iraqis from tyranny has to have been at least a rationalization for sending troops to Iraq. And maybe that is all it was, but the idea of it as a goal was there, I think. A main goal? No.

[Universe Prince]

Plane, motivations for entering W.W. II have no relevance, that I can see, to this discussion. The conflict in Iraq is not W.W. II. That ended back in the 1940s This year is 2006 by the Gregorian calendar. There are something like 60 years between now and then. Our leaders are entirely different people, and the war in Iraq is an entirely different conflict. If you want to talk about similarities of motivations, about the only similarity that might be drawn is that there are speculations both F.D.R. and G.W.B. wanted to find a way to draw America into a global conflict. So I think you don't really want to be bringing W.W. II into this discussion, unless your goal is to persuade me that JS is entirely correct.

[Plane]

Plane, motivations for entering W.W. II have no relevance, that I can see, to this discussion. The conflict in Iraq is not W.W. II. That ended back in the 1940s This year is 2006 by the Gregorian calendar. There are something like 60 years between now and then. Our leaders are entirely different people, and the war in Iraq is an entirely different conflict. If you want to talk about similarities of motivations, about the only similarity that might be drawn is that there are speculations both F.D.R. and G.W.B. wanted to find a way to draw America into a global conflict. So I think you don't really want to be bringing W.W. II into this discussion, unless your goal is to persuade me that JS is entirely correct.

People are still people , we have changed only a little since prehistory , we wear diffrent clothes and drive faster chairiots but what Socraties observed about People is still relivant nonetheless.



Is it your point that freeing Iraq from repression was a reason given to the masses by the eletes who really make the decisions? So the the" real " reasons were ulterior reasons known only to a few?

I do not have this paradgn down really.

In my estimation , the reason that is taken by the people is a real determiner , the people don't just vote every two years , they lend support or oppose the direction of government constantly , the resultant vector is an addition of millions of vectors with the leanings of the elete only able to turn the tide a little off of its chosen trajectory.

If the People beleived , wanted and supported the relief of the people of Iraq then this is a real reason .

If the people as a whole care some what less now than then for this reason , then this may be a rest in the momentum , or it may be a turning of the tide , either way when the great mass of us are moving the elete surf along on our waves .

[Universe Prince]

People are still people , we have changed only a little since prehistory , we wear diffrent clothes and drive faster chairiots but what Socraties observed about People is still relivant nonetheless.

None of which changes the fact that the specific motivations for entry into World War II are not relevant to the discussion of motivations for the Iraq War. If the same people were making the decisions, and if the nature of the conflict was the same, you might have a valid point here. But different people are making the decisions, and the nature of the conflict is different.

Is it your point that freeing Iraq from repression was a reason given to the masses by the eletes who really make the decisions?

No. That is not my point. My point in this discussion is the same as it has been since my initial post. The notion that we are helping to establish a free Iraq is a false notion with no basis in reality.

So the the" real " reasons were ulterior reasons known only to a few?

I'm not saying that. It might in fact be the case, but I'm not saying it is, and whether we do or don't know is not my point. Whatever their motivations were or are, the romantic idea that we're fighting tyranny and establishing a bastion of freedom in the Middle East is simply not true. Whatever this conflict is about, it isn't about freedom no matter much we might wish it was.

I do not have this paradgn down really.

In my estimation , the reason that is taken by the people is a real determiner , the people don't just vote every two years , they lend support or oppose the direction of government constantly , the resultant vector is an addition of millions of vectors with the leanings of the elete only able to turn the tide a little off of its chosen trajectory.

If the People beleived , wanted and supported the relief of the people of Iraq then this is a real reason .

Um, no. If the people believed it, it might be a reason why they supported the war, but that hardly makes it a genuine reason or motivation as to why the leaders decided to go to war. Unless you expect me to believe that there was some sort of great outpouring of demand from the general populace that America go to war with Iraq. That is not the way events unfolded, as I recall.

If the people as a whole care some what less now than then for this reason , then this may be a rest in the momentum , or it may be a turning of the tide , either way when the great mass of us are moving the elete surf along on our waves .

That is a wonderfully romantic notion, Plane, but as romantic a fellow as I am, I don't buy it. The Bush administration had to build a case for war with Iraq. There was no demand from the people for war in Iraq before that. I hope to God that we never see the day when the general populace starts demanding the leaders take America to war against a country that has not attacked us. That would truly be a horrible day.

[_JS]

This reminds me of similar actions taken by the "democratic" government of South Vietrnam before it collapsed.They also "cracked down" on dissidents and we saw basic freedoms melt away.

As you'll recall, the United States played a rather large role in the non-democratic functions of South Vietnam. In fact, that was an era where the United States and the West (as well as the Soviet Union and the East) aided a large number of very nasty and brutal dictatorial regimes. At a basic level, one's tyrannical brutality was acceptable as long as it was done in the name of "our side."